This revision petition has been filed by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and its Sampati Adhikari who were opposite parties before the District Forum. Respondent herein is the complainant. 2. The petitioner-Parishad introduced a self-financing scheme in the Indira Nagar area at Dehradun in the year 1991 and the registration of the said scheme commenced from 28.10.1991. The respondent/complainant registered his name under this scheme for a house and deposited Rs.50,000/- as registration fee and also deposited instalments from time to time. Estimated cost of this house was about Rs.4 lakh. It is stated that in December, 1993, Indira Nagar Residents Organization raised some dispute with the petitioner-Parishad with regard to the land on which the petitioner-Parishad was constructing the houses under this scheme. The matter was taken before the Civil Court through Civil suit No. 768 of 1993 against the petitioner-Parishad. Later on, Civil Judge, Dehradun on 14.12.1993 issued notice and passed an order of tatus quoto be maintained in the aforesaid matter. It is stated that due to this status quo order passed by the learned Civil Judge, petitioner-Parishad could not complete its scheme within time. In 1995, the respondent /complainant filed a complaint case no. 321 of 1995 before the District Forum, Dehradun in which it was alleged that petitioner-Parishad could not complete the scheme within time and hence the respondent/complainant prayed for return of his deposited money with an interest @ 24% per annum and also compensation of Rs.20,000/-. During the pendency of the consumer complaint before the District Forum, office of the petitioner-Parishad issued an office order dated 4.6.1997 for returning the deposited amount of the respondent/complainant. As per rules of the petitioner-Parishad, interest on the deposited amount 9% p.a. was added to the deposited amount of the respondent. As per the calculation, an amount of Rs.4,00,978/- had been deposited by the respondent on which the interest @ 9% per annum was calculated at Rs.1,14,179/-. Accordingly, the petitioner-Parishad returned the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,15,257/- (Rs.4,00,978/- + Rs.1,14,279/-) through cheque dated 30.6.1997 to the respondent with a covering letter dated 11.7.1997. After hearing the parties and scrutinizing the documents, the District Forum vide its order dated 21.5.1999 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner-Parishad to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,978/- deposited by the respondent/complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.4.1994 to 31.5.1997. The amount of Rs.1,14,278/- which has already been paid by the petitioner-Parishad to the complainant was directed to be adjusted from the interest to be calculated @ 18% p.a. as per the order of the District Forum. The District Forum further passed an order that after adjusting the amount already received by the complainant, the petitioner-Parishad would pay an interest @ 12% per annum from 1.6.1997 till the net additional amount required to be paid to the complainant as per the order of the District Forum, is actually paid by the petitioner-Parishad. An amount of Rs.500/- was also ordered to be given to the complainant by way of cost within two months from the date of the order. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the petitioner-Parishad filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow. Because of the formation of the new State of Uttrakhand, the appeal in question came to be transferred from the U.P. State Commission to Uttrakhand State Commission at Dehradun. The Uttrakhand State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-Parishad both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit vide its impugned order dated 21.6.2010 and hence, the present revision petition challenging the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. At the outset, it is seen from the application filed by the petitioner-Parishad that there is a delay in filing the present revision petition which the petitioner-Parishad has prayed to be condoned. There is no mention about the period of delay in the application of the petitioner but it is seen from the scrutiny sheet put up by the Registry that there is delay of 309 days in filing the revision petition. It is submitted in the application that the petitioner was informed about the passing of the impugned order dated 21.6.2010 by its counsel and thereafter some time was taken by the petitioner in getting the approval of the Legal Advisor from the Head Office for filing of the Special Leave Petition before this Court. It is further submitted that some delay occured due to the reason that documents on which the petitioners had relied upon before the court below were in vernacular and it took some time in these documents to be translated into English. Some time was also taken in preparation of the aforesaid matter in the office of the counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the delay in question is neither intentional nor deliberate and hence the request for its condonation. We have noted that no dates have been given by the petitioner-Parishad. While giving reasons for the delay, only a general explanation has been given in respect of long delay of 309 days. It is well established that each day delay beyond the period prescribed has to be explained before the request for condonation of such delay can be granted. After considering the reasons put forth by the petitioner-Parishad, we are not inclined to condone the delay in question in filing the present revision and the same is liable for dismissal on this ground alone. 5. Coming to the merits of this case, we find that the only issue for our consideration is in respect of the rate of interest on the amounts deposited by the respondent with the petitioner-Parishad. Keeping in view the undisputed factual position emanating from the record, we do not find the interest @ 18% p.a. granted by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission by their concurrent orders is unreasonable or unjustified in the facts and circumstances of this case. Since after adjusting the payments already released by the petitioner-Parishad, there would still be substantial payment to be made under the orders of the fora below, the fora below were right in granting interest on the balance amount but they have rightly reduced the interest thereof to 12% per annum from 1.6.1997 till the date of actual payment. 6. We do not find any irregularity or legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent orders of the fora below while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed and the impugned order of the State Commission is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.