Complainant/respondent was allotted a plot in auction for Rs.28,37,235/-.  He deposited Rs.20,37,235/- in time.  Rs.8 lakh were deposited with a delay of 8 days.  On 2.8.2010, petitioner asked the respondent to deposit Rs.3,507/- towards interest and penalty for delay in deposit of Rs.8 lakh.  Respondent paid the amount.  On 2.2.2011, petitioner again asked the respondent to pay Rs.40,000/- towards penalty for late deposit of Rs.8 lakh.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed the complaint.

        District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to deposit the sum of Rs.3,507/- with interest if the same is not deposited and quashed the demand of Rs.40,000/-.  Penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on the petitioner to be recovered from the defaulting employee, out of which Rs.25,000/- were to be given to the complainant and balance of Rs.75,000/- were to be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

        Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal.  However, the direction given by the District Forum to recover the amount from the concerned employee was deleted. 

        Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

        Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has erred in deleting the direction given by the District Forum to recover the amount from the concerned employee.

        We do not find any substance in this submission.  Concerned employee has not been found guilty after holding the enquiry.  Guilt cannot be pin-pointed.  Keeping this factor in view, recovery cannot be made from the employee.

        Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent has not paid the sum of Rs.3,507/-.  Even if it is assumed that the amount has not been paid, petitioner has not justified the recovery of Rs.40,000/- from the respondent for the delayed payment of Rs.8 lakh.

        No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.