Smt. Pratima Sarkar, the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Siliguri, Darjeeling (‘District Forum’ for short), has filed this revision petition seeking to challenge the order dated 11th of August, 2006 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘State Commission’ for short). The State Commission vide the said order has dismissed the revision application filed by her challenging the order dated 9th of December, 2005 passed by the District Forum in execution application. Facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner/complainant was maintaining a Savings Bank Account with the respondent/opposite party/Central Bank of India to receive the family pension after the death of her husband, who died on 21st of November, 1990. Contending that she had not been paid the family pension as was due to her, she filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum during 2002. The District Forum vide its order dated 14th of August, 2003 allowed the complaint on contest by the opposite party/Central Bank of India and held that the complainant was entitled to have interest upon the defaulting amount on recurring deposit basis from the date of accrual up to the date of payment i.e. 27.08.2001 at the prevailing rate of interest at that time. A compensation of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded to be paid within a month, failing which the complainant was entitled to be paid interest @ 10% per annum. None of the parties challenged this order before the State Commission. The respondent/opposite party/Central Bank of India further did not comply with the order of the District Forum. After keeping quiet for quite some time, the petitioner/complainant filed execution application on the 10th of August, 2005 before the District Forum and the District Forum, on consideration of the details of the claim and counter-claim made by the complainant and the respondent/opposite party/Central Bank of India, vide order dated 9th of December, 2005 directed the respondent/opposite party/Central Bank of India to pay a sum of Rs.48,391/- to the petitioner/complainant. Dissatisfied with this order passed in execution application by the District Forum that the petitioner complainant filed a revision application before the State Commission which, as already stated above, was dismissed by the State Commission. The complainant is aggrieved once again and has filed this revision petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the District Forum while passing the order in the execution application has modified the substantive order passed in the complaint and the complainant would be entitled to much more than what has been awarded. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has to be rejected for the simple reason that the order passed by the District Forum in the execution application was only an elaboration of the words ‘defaulting amount on recurring deposit basis’ which has been translated in specific terms in the order passed in the execution application. This does not amount to review of its earlier order. On the contrary, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that she would be entitled to much higher amount of interest on recurring basis will amount to reviving the complaint for reconsideration which is not permissible in law, especially when no appeal had been filed against the order which has attained finality long back. The State Commission, in our view, has rightly dismissed the revision application. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the amount of default also has no legs to stand since, as contended by learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party/Central Bank of India, the calculations made for the arrears include the component of interest. The respondent/opposite party/Central Bank of India has also paid the compensation of Rs.10,000/- and in addition Rs.8475/- towards the interest thereon for the delay. Thus, the claim for payment of interest does not survive. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed, with no order as to cost.