APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Mohan Anisetty, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 29th NOVEMBER 2013 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 26.06.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 184/2013, uthoot Finance Corporation Ltd. versus Tatina Vijaya Kumar vide which while allowing the appeal of OP, the order dated 25.03.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vijayawada in CC No. 214/2009, partly allowing the said complaint was modified. The District Forum had directed the OPs to receive gold loan amount of `10,95,974/- and to return the gold ornaments to the complainants and also to return the signed blank cheques, as well as to pay `25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and `5,000/- towards cost. However, the State Commission modified the order, directing the complainant to pay a sum of `9,38,311/- with interest @19.5% p.a. deducting the amount already deposited by them. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner obtained gold loan of `7,25,000/- from the OPs on 16.2.2007 having interest @19.5%, by pledging his gold ornaments weighing 1014.1gm. The OP No. 2 deducted the first instalment of the re-payment `11,817.50/- on the date of pledge. As stated by the complainant, he could not pay the instalments of loan till 09.07.2008, as he had undergone treatment for his ailment. He approached OP No. 2 on 09.07.2008 and expressed his intention to pay the entire amount with interest and requested for return of the gold ornaments. However, the OP No. 2 did not show any interest to close the account of the complainant. The complainant has further stated that the OPs had kept auction of his gold ornaments on 30.10.2008, but the said auction was not conducted and the OPs forcibly obtained two blank cheques from the complainants. Subsequently, the OPs alleged that a cheque for `3,00,000/- was presented to the bank, but it was dishonoured. The complainant has further stated that he had been approaching the OPs on many occasions for deposit of the loan amount, but they did not settle his account. He then filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum and the said Forum vide order dated 25.03.2010 allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to receive the gold loan amount of `10,95,974/- and to return the gold ornaments and also the signed blank cheques. The OPs were also directed to give `25,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and `5,000/- as cost of litigation. In appeal filed before the State Commission by the OPs, the said order was modified and the complainant was directed to pay amount of `9,38,311/- with interest @19.5% p.a. from 17.07.2008 till 29.11.2012 after deducting amount `11,88,235/- already deposited. It is against this order, that the present revision petition has been made. 3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the grounds of the revision petition, saying that the respondents/OPs had admitted in the written version that the complainant had requested the OPs on 09.07.2008 to close his account by charging interest @19.5% p.a. No liability could, therefore, be imposed on the complainant after 09.07.2008, as the OPs failed to receive the amount offered. The District Forum had rightly stated that only the balance amount of `92,261/- was payable by the complainant. The complainant deposited an amount of `10,95,974/- on 29.11.2012 and 92,261/- on 29.12.2012 within the period allowed by the District Forum. There was no justification for the State Commission for modifying the said order. 4. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The factum of raising loan by the petitioner from the respondents /OPs against pledging of gold ornaments and the payment of interest @19.5% has been admitted by the complainant. It has also been admitted by him that he defaulted in the repayment of the said loan to the OPs, due to his health condition. The stand of the complainant is that he should not be made to pay interest after 09.07.2008 when he offered to the OPs to make payment of the entire outstanding amount and also requested them to return his gold ornaments. It is not clear, however, how the petitioner could not deposit the said amount with the OPs. In case, the OPs had expressed their unwillingness to accept the amount, it was open to the complainant to send them a Bank draft etc. but there is no evidence on record to show that the OPs refused to accept the offer of the complainant. It has been observed by the State Commission that the petitioner failed to comply with the interim direction issued by the District Forum to deposit the amount due in order to return the pledged gold items. The State Commission has, therefore, rightly directed that the complainant should pay the amount of `9,38,311/- with interest @19.5% p.a. from 17.07.2008 till 29.11.2012, after deducting the amount already deposited by him. We do not find any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is ordered to be confirmed. The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.