These two revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the State Commission in two separate appeals filed by both the parties. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant Shri Sanjiv Gupta had entered into an arrangement with the petitioner M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. and the 2nd Respondent for painting (interior and exterior), and, for wood polishing of his residence. The process through which this was to be done was clearly spelt out in the Agreement. It was the case of the complainant that the entire painting was to be completed by July 2002 and the polishing including painting and finishing was to be completed by 15th Aug. 2002. This schedule was not adhered to by the Petitioner. The matter was repeatedly taken with the petitioner, Asian Paints (India) Limited but it did not show any result. Whatever work was done, in that, several defects were noticed, and a letter was addressed bringing this to the notice of the petitioner. In response to which the petitioner wrote a letter saying that they are willing to repaint the wooden areas as well as interior wall surfaces and also offered waiving of a sum of Rs.2,27,000/- from the total job-value, to which, the complainant did not agree. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint in following terms:- “In the result, the complainant is able to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 to the extent discussed in point No. II and hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant.” Aggrieved / dissatisfied by this order, two separate appeals were filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal filed by the complainant by directing, the petitioner before us, to refund Rs.3,75,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. together with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost of Rs.5,000/-. Appeal filed by the petitioner before us was dismissed. It is in these circumstances, these revision petitions have been filed before us. We heard the Counsel for the parties at some length. Like the State Commission, we also like to reproduce the letter written by the petitioner to the complainant, in toto:- “Asian Paints Home Solutions December 9, 2002 Sanjiv Gupta C/o Bodh Tree Consulting Limited, 1-8-617/2, Prakasham Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016. Sub:- Painting of your premises at 8-2-402/C/11, Road No. 5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Dear Mr. Gupta, This refers to our letter to you dated 29th November, 2002 on the above and subsequent discussions with you. We have taken note of all the points made by you and have made sincere efforts to incorporate the same in our proposal detailed in this letter. The work undertaken at your site is summarised below for your ready reference: 1. First work contract for interior wall finish, exterior wall finish and some wood finish work for an amount of Rs.5,20,273/-. 2. Complete application of 3 coats of putty and 1 coat of wall primer for interiors necessitated due to failure of the earlier putty work done by another local contractor with a total job value of Rs.1,27,200/-. 3. Additional wood work for cupboards and other interior wood surfaces and exterior finish for compound wall and servant quarters with a total job value of Rs.2,72,433/-. Hence the total job carried out at the site is valued at Rs.9,19,906/-. We are in receipt of a total amount of Rs.3,75,000/- from you against the above work undertaking at your site. Once again apologising for the inconveniences caused to you here is the proposal to resolve some of the problems on the site. 1. We offer to repaint the wooden areas by undertaking complete recommended system right from scratch. 2. We propose to apply one coat on all the interior wall surfaces and on all affected exterior surfaces. 3. We propose to waive off a total amount of Rs.2,27,000/- from the total job value as a gesture of our goodwill towards the inconvenience caused to you. Hence, if the proposal is found in order, the net job value reduces to Rs.6,92,906/- and the rework as detailed in the proposal is entirely at our cost. We do urge you to revert with your acceptance to the proposal at the earliest so that the modalities of execution can be discussed with you in person. With warm regards.” (emphasis supplied) A mere perusal of this letter, which is not disputed, clearly brings out three things – firstly, an offer to repaint the wooden areas by undertaking complete recommended system right from scratch, secondly, application of one coat on all the interior wall surfaces and on all affected exterior services, and thirdly, waiving of a sum of Rs.2,27,000/- from the total job value as a gesture of goodwill. We may not go into the question whether this will amount to deficiency in service, yet it cannot be disputed that if the petitioner had undertaken the jobs in this offer letter referred to at (1) and (2), i.e., complete repaint of the wooden areas as well as the interior and exterior of the walls, it would have cost the same amount as originally estimated. Since this offer was not acceptable after a lapse of time, meaning thereby that this amount which the petitioner would have spent, which has been saved in the present circumstances, and if we convert this into money alongwith offer of waiving of Rs.2,27,000/- we find no ground to interfere with the order of refund of Rs.3,75,000/- as directed by the State Commission. However, we find that the interest awarded is on the high side, which we reduce to 4% p.a. As far as compensation is concerned, we see no merit in granting compensation for the simple reason that it is not the case of the complainant that work was not done. Even the alleged poor quality of work remains unproved, in view of which we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission awarding compensation of Rs.1 lakh, which is set aside. However, the cost awarded @Rs.5,000/- is maintained. In the result, the petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent / complainant a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- alongwith interest @4% p.a. from 29.11.2002 till the date of payment, together with cost of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 6 weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which the respondent / complainant shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Both the revision petitions stand disposed off in above terms.