JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.09 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.2000/08, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the opposite parties against the order dated 18.08.08 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udaipur in complaint case No. 02/07 whereby the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the present petitioner by making the following order/directions :- “ Therefore, while disposing of the dispute the complaint of the complainant against opponent no. 6 and 7 is disallowed and rejected but allowed against opponent no. 1 to 5 and it is ordered that the opponents no. 1 to 5 jointly and severally pay to the complainant her duly deposited fees of Rs.2,03,800/- and damages Rs.50,000/-, total Rs.2,53,800/- and interest thereon from the date of the presentation of complaint dated 14/12/06 until recovery @ 9% p.a. simple interest and Rs.1,000/- as cost of complainant within one month from today.” ..3… 2. In appeal, the State Commission, going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances, partly allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the District Forum in the following manner :- “ Consequently, the appeal of the appellants-opposite parties is allowed partly and it is ordered that :- 1. Complainant-respondent shall get Rs.95,836/- from appellant no.1 to 5-opposite parties no. 1 to 5 jointly and severally in place of remaining deposited fees of Rs.2,03,800/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 14.12.06, till the realization. 2. The portion of order passed by District Forum whereby Rs.50,000/- have been awarded in favour of complainant-respondent towards compensation , is set aside. 3. The impugned order dated 18.08.08 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur is modified to this effect, and the remaining part of same is confirmed. 3. We have heard Mr. H.D. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He would assail the finding of the State Commission so far it has held that the complainant had voluntarily withdrawn/did not pursue the course after she was transferred first from Hyderabad to Gurgaon and then Gurgaon to Udaipur. In any case, he submits that the order passed by the District Forum was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. On consideration of the matter, we are of the ..4.. view that the State Commission has taken into account various aspects involved in the matter and going by the limited deficiency which can be said to have been committed by the opposite parties in not refunding the refundable fees, the State Commission has modulated the relief by giving a reasoned order. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the State Commission is justified and does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for interference by this Commission in revional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is dismissed.