Taken up through video conferencing. 1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 31.01.2016 of the State Commission in appeal no. 162 of 2014 arising out of the Order dated 21.12.2013 of the District Commission in complaint no. 129 of 2011. 3. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. This is a builder-buyer dispute. The District Commission vide its Order dated 21.12.2013 had made the following award: “13. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs.11,02,607/- to the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of each payment till realization. The above said order shall be complied within, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.” The same had been upheld by the State Commission while dismissing the appeal filed by the opposite parties (the petitioners herein). “9. The Forum directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.11,02,607/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of each payment till realization. We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum. In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits on instructions that since this is an old dispute and the respondent no.1 has since expired, without pressing its points of facts and law raised in their petition the petitioners are ready and willing to settle the matter with the respondents by paying a lump- sum amount of Rs.18.00 lakh to the respondent no.2 Mrs. Prema V. Nair, who is the widow of the respondent no.1, within two weeks from today. 6. Learned counsel further submits on instructions that he has now Argued on his points of facts and law and on the merits of the case, as such this may not be treated as precedent. Learned counsel for the respondents submits on instructions that the legal heirs of the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 have no objection and are ready and willing to settle the matter on receipt of lump sum amount of Rs.18.00 lacs from the petitioners within two weeks from today by way of demand draft in the name of Respondent No.2 i.e. Smt. Prema V. Nair. 7. In the wake of the above submissions, the revision petition is rendered infructuous. The matter is disposed of with the directions that an amount of Rs.18.00 lacs through bank draft be paid by the petitioners to the respondent No.2 Smt. Prema V. Nair within two weeks from today, without fail. The learned counsel for the petitioners assures on instructions that the time period will be adhered to. The petitioners shall be bound by the submissions made by their learned counsel. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by this Commission, 50% of the awarded amount along with up to date interest shall be deposited by the petitioners with the District Commission. He requests that the said amount along with interest, if any thereon, may be refunded to the petitioners by the District commission after two weeks from today and after the petitioners furnish proof to the District Commission that they have paid the settled amount of Rs.18.00 lacs to the respondent No.2. 9. The District Commission is directed to refund the amount, if any, deposited in compliance of the order dated 09.8.2016 along with interest, if any, accrued thereon to the petitioners after two weeks from today after following due procedure and after due verification and upon furnishing proof to the District Commission that they have paid the settled amount of Rs.18.00 lacs to Smt. Prema V. Nair, the respondent no.2. 10. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in this petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. Dasti in addition to facilitate timely compliance. | 
