Heard the Petitioner who appears in person.   The order of the District  Forum shows that the Advocate for the Complainant had surprisingly expressed that his client refused to accept the bankers cheque.  He wants punishment to be given.   The State Commission in the impugned order which is subject matter of challenge has observed  that the Opposite Party in compliance of order dated 25.6.2009 had brought a draft of the amount payable thereunder with interest upto 1^st February  and as such there was no case for taking action under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The original order of the State Commission states that the compliance of  the order should be made within a period of one months or else Complainant will entitled to get interest @ 12% p.a.   When the amount be offered with upto date interest and  the same was not accepted by the Complainant and as such the State Commission has very rightly rejected the contempt petition filed under section 27(1) of Consumer Protection act, 1986 filed by the Complainant. 

In view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out by the Petitioner for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction  under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.