1.       This is the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner SBI Cards against the concurrent Orders of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Durg District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which have allowed the Complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 for refund of an amount of Rs. 73,927.05 alongwith certain interest and compensation.

2.       The issue on hand is that the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant had made a payment of Rs. 73,927.05 to an educational institution through Respondent No. 2 payment getaway using his credit card issued by the Petitioner. However, no receipt or intimation was received for having made the payment to the educational institution. The Respondent No. 1, in his anxiety, made another payment of Rs. 73,000/- from his bank account to the educational institution, which had, however, already received the previous payment made through Respondent No. 2 debiting the amount from his credit card. The educational institution accordingly received the payment twice, but it refunded the amount received through Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner. However, this amount was not shown as credit in the credit card account of the Respondent No. 1.

3.       The learned Counsel for both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 made their submission and admitted to the facts above. However, the dispute was between the two who is actually responsible for withholding the amount and not crediting it to the Respondent No. 1. They conceded that it is an internal matter between them to sort out. There was a lack of communication between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2, which resulted the Respondent No. 1 to suffer the financial loss. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have dealt with the matter exhaustively and there is no new issue of either facts or law brought by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2. Being a concurrent finding, the scope of this Commission is very limited. Considering that the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant has suffered loss of Rs. 73,927.05, which was charged on his credit card issued by the Petitioner through the Respondent no. 2, and the amount continues to be lying with the Respondent No. 2, this amount definitely needs to be refunded to the Respondent No. 1 and for the period the amount continues to be with the Petitioner / Respondent No. 2, the Respondent No. 1 deserves to have a reasonable compensation for such delay as the amount should have been refunded immediately on receipt of the same from the educational institution. The deficiency of service on the part of both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 is held proved.

4.       In view of the aforesaid, the Revision Petition is dismissed and the Orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are partly upheld with the modification that there shall be no amount payable towards mental agony and cost of litigation.