1. The judgment was passed by this Commission on 12.09.2012. None appeared on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, the revision petition was decided in his absence. The counsel for the respondent has moved an application for review of this order. It is submitted that due to late arrival of the train, the counsel was unable to arrive in time, before this Commission. It is averred that the complainant could not get the opportunity to satisfy the Commission by producing the necessary papers and documents as well as by delivery of arguments regarding the point as to whether the complainant was entitled to get the said amount of Rs.7,23,559.47ps, from the OP. It is prayed that under these circumstances, opportunity be granted in favour of the respondent. It is explained that the main order was passed considering the Statement of Account filed by respondent/OP. Again, in para No.3 of the judgment, it was wrongly mentioned that the District Forum also awarded Rs.10,00,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. It is explained that opportunity should be granted otherwise, it will seriously prejudice the complainant. 2. We see no force in all these arguments. The applicant has been harping upon the same point pportunity must be given, otherwise the complainant/respondent would be prejudiced It is difficult to fathom as to why the order passed by this Commission is wrong and what are the defects? The order clearly goes to show that the applicant deposited a sum of Rs.3,83,654.36ps, plus costs and litigation charges. The applicant has failed to prove that the Statement of Account given by the respondent is incorrect. It is not explained as to how the complainant is entitled to Rs.7,23,559.47. 3. As far as the figure of Rs.10,00,000/- mentioned in para No.3 of the judgment is concerned, the typographical error i.e. Rs.10,00,000/-, is rectified and it may now be read as Rs.10,000/-, instead of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. The review petition is meritless and the same is, therefore, dismissed.