PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners/OP against the order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. A/10/1304 athew Varghese & Anr. Vs. M/s. S.S. Construction & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondent No.1 purchased two flats bearing Nos. 6 & 8 in a building constructed and developed by OPs. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.9,43,000/- from time to time and balance of Rs.26,676/- was to be paid at the time of possession along with Rs.30,000/- for the terrace. It was further alleged that OPs failed to execute written agreement and also failed to deliver possession. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint. OP contested that agreement had been terminated vide letter dated 10.2.2004 and complainant was asked to collect the money and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Ld. District Forum after hearing both parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by State Commission vide impugned order and Ld. State Commission directed OP to handover possession of Flat Nos. 6 & 8 after taking Rs.26,676/- towards balance amount and Rs.30,000/- for terrace or in the alternate, to refund Rs.9,69,676/- to the complainant along with interest @ 24% p.a. from 20.10.2008 i.e. date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he presses revision petition only to the extent of award of interest @ 24% p.a. from 20.10.08 and petitioner is ready to refund original amount as ordered by learned State Commission. 5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that complainant made last payment in June, 2000 and later on as per statement of OPs agreement was terminated in 2001 and asked complainant to collect the money paid by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that petitioner has sold these flats to other persons in 2006. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that petitioner was enjoying fund of the respondent/complainant from 2000 to 2008 and at the same time, also enjoyed fund received from sale of flats in 2006. Learned State Commission has directed petitioner to refund money along with 24% p.a. interest only from 20.10.2008 and has not granted interest from the date of making payment. As no interest has been awarded from June, 2000 to 19.10.2008, grant of 24% p.a. interest from 20.10.2008 till realization cannot be said to be unreasonable. 6. We do not find any infirmity, irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.