1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 25.01.2022 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1297 of 2018 arising out of the Order dated 22.06.2018 of the District Commission in complaint no. 2453 of 2017.

 2.      We have heard the learned counsel on admission and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 22.06.2018 of the District Commission, the Order dated 25.01.2022 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.       The District Commission proceeded ex parte against the opposite party construction firm (the petitioner herein), recording in para 3 of its Order that “After admitting the complaint notice issued to OP, notice was served on OP called out absent hence placed exparte.” It proceeded to take the evidence of the complainant and after appraising the evidence and material, and for reasons given, partly allowed the complaint. It directed the construction firm to refund the excess collected amount of Rs.10,64,269/- along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. to the complainant (the respondent herein).

We note that after proceeding ex parte against the construction firm the District Commission duly appraised the evidence and gave its reasoned findings.

The construction firm preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs.10,000/-. It however reduced rate of interest from 10% p.a. to 6% p.a. on and modified the District Commission’s Order to that extent. 

A perusal of the State Commission’s Order shows that it has duly considered the contentions of the construction firm in respect of being proceeded against ex parte before the District Commission and it also duly examined the merits of the matter and, for reasons given, concluded that it “ … does not find any good grounds either of facts or on law to interfere in the impugned order except to the extent of rate of interest…”.

The Order of the State Commission is a matter of record, no useful purpose will be served by reproducing it here all over again. Suffice it to say that we notice no jurisdictional error or material irregularity or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned. No good ground or persuasive reason for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is forthcoming. 

6.       The revision petition is sans merit and stands dismissed.     

7.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.