Standard Chartered Bank, petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by Delhi State Commission with a delay of 364 days which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petition. After passing of the judgment, petitioner filed a review application before the State Commission which was dismissed on 06.04.2010 and thereafter, the revision petition has been filed with an application for condonation of delay. Supreme Court in “Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors.Versus Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. - (2011)9 SCC 541” has held that the District Forum and the State Commission do not have the power to review/recall their own orders. Since the petitioner was pursuing the remedy for recall of the order, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. Complainant/respondent purchased 8 seater Maruti Van in December 2007 and got it partly financed from the respondent and -3- obtained loan of Rs.98,600/- on 28.11.2002. According to her, her signatures were obtained on some blank papers and 14 blank cheques had also been taken from her. She had taken another loan of Rs.1,02,000/- and the balance outstanding amount of Rs.44,000/- against the car loan was adjusted against the sum of Rs.98,600/- extended to her; that despite the car loan having been paid petitioner seized the car on 28.01.2005. She visited the Bank and requested the Manager of the Bank to release the vehicle which was not acceded to. The Manager demanded Rs.50,000/- from her. Respondent being aggrieved filed complaint with the Police Station and thereafter, filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2 Lac by way of compensation in view of seized car and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony suffered by the respondent. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to refund the margin money towards sale consideration of -4- the car along with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and other sufferings. Petitioner was also directed to return postdated cheques, if not already done. The State Commission while allowing the appeal issued the following directions: “1. OP shall refund the margin money towards the sale consideration of the car. 2. OP shall pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, harassment and other sufferings. 3. OP shall return all the PDCs, if these are not returned.” Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no margin money towards the sale consideration. The outstanding amount as on the date of seizure was Rs.59,500/-. The vehicle was sold for Rs.51,000/- after adjusting the sale consideration towards outstand loan amount. Rs.8,500/- are still outstanding but the petitioner undertakes not to recover the outstanding amount from the respondent. Petitioner in compliance with the said directions sent a cheque No.245005 dated 06.5.2009 in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the -5- respondent which has been encashed by the respondent. Petitioner had also sent postdated cheques by Speed Post which were received back with the report that the respondent has shifted her residence. In spite of the fact that the petitioner has complied with the order passed by the State Commission, respondent filed an execution application before the District Forum. District Forum had issued Warrants of Attachment of Rs.3,50,000/- against the petitioner. We find substance in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. The sum of Rs.50,000/- as per direction issued by the State Commission has already been paid to the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has handed over the postdated cheques to the counsel for the respondent in presence of the respondent. Counsel for the respondent has failed to show that there was any margin money. The State Commission has not recorded any finding that there was margin money and if so how much. While issuing notice, we had stayed the proceedings before the executing court. Since the order of the State Commission has been complied with, the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent -6- before the District Forum are quashed. The order of attachment passed by the District Forum is vacated. Revision petition stands disposed of. | 
