The petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant had purchased a row-house from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- against which Rs.40,000/- was paid as earnest money and remaining amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was paid after obtaining loan from Life Insurance Corporation. After making full payment when the occupation was not being given by the petitioner to the respondent / complainant, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint in following terms:- “1. Application of complainant is granted against respondent No.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/- 2. It is order to respondent No. 1 that he will pay to complainant the purchase amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs. Two Lac Fifty thousand only) from the date of acceptation of amount with interest of 18% p.a. till the realisation of the amount. 3. Other demands of complainant is rejected. 4. There is no any demand against respondent No. 2 as such no order is passed.” Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us. It is the case of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that since it is they who have repaid the loan amount to LIC, they cannot be directed to either give the possession or refund the money to the respondent / complainant, for which he wishes to rely upon the statement of bank account as also the receipts of money by LIC. In our view, the most crucial material is the statement showing payment of loan amount to the LIC. We have very carefully gone through the material brought on record running into 7 pages (page 87 onwards of the paper-book) and find that it is in the name of the respondent / complainant. At no stage, or at no place, it is anywhere mentioned that the loan amount has been repaid to LIC by the petitioner. There is a concurrent finding of fact on this point returned by both the lower Fora and no illegality or jurisdictional error has been shown to us to call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition has no merit. Dismissed.