1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 03.12.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.631 of 2018 in which order dated 26.07.2018 of Jaipur Third, Jaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 830 of 2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 03.12.2018. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and respondents who are present in person. 3. The Petitioner admits that they have received an amount of Rs.51,000/-, but states that said amount was deposited by a partnership firm in the name of S.S.Forging and Fabrication Industries, of which, the respondents herein are the partners. The said amount could not be refunded on account of internal disputes between the partners, which is evident from the letter dated 02.01.2002 written by S.S.Tayal and Shailendra Tayal to the Petitioner Corporation. He has also drawn our attention to their response dated 19.02.2002 addressed to S.S.Tayal and Shailendra Tayal, the two partners. Although the Petitioner herein has raised a legal issue of the complaint being not maintainable as the plot was for commercial purpose and hence respondents not being consumers, but states that they have no objection in refunding the amount received by them as long as respondents herein who are the partners of the partnership firm resolve their internal dispute themselves. It was also admitted during the hearing that partnership firm is no more in existence. Respondents who appeared in person as detailed above agrees that they have no objection in receiving the equal amount as being the erstwhile partners of the firm from the Petitioner i.e. 1/4th share by four partners as per Memo of Parties with share of respondent no. 3 going to the two legal heirs of respondent no.3. It was also stated that respondent no.2, who is father of respondent no.1 is no more and legal heirs of respondent no.3 and respondent no.4, who are present in person have no objection if share of respondent no.2 is also paid to respondent no.1. 4. In this case, although there are concurrent findings of both the fora below, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby modify the order of the State Commission and District Forum and direct as under : a. Petitioner Corporation shall refund the entire amount of Rs.51,000/- received by them to the respondents as per following details : (i) Rs.25,500/- in total to respondent no.1, who will receive Rs.12,750/ each on his behalf and on behalf of respondent no.2 ( his deceased father) (ii) Rs.12,750/- to the two legal heirs of respondent ( i.e. wife and daughter) of respondent no.3. (iii) Rs.12,750/ to respondent no.4 Mr. Dhirendra Tayal. 5. In addition to above, the Petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed as cost as per order dated 22.06.2023, to the respondents, also in the same proportion as above i.e. Rs.5000/- to respondent no.1 ( Rs. 2500/- on his behalf and Rs.2500/- on behalf of R-2), Rs.2500/- to respondent no.4 and Rs.2500/- to legal heirs of respondent no.3. The above said amount i.e. the principal amount of Rs.51,000/- shall be payable with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt by the Petitioner Corporation till the date of actual payment. No interest shall be payable on this cost of Rs.10,000/-. However, the orders of the State Commission / District Forum with respect to the compensation and cost is hereby set aside. 6. The Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly. The Petitioner shall pay the above said amount within 30 days from today. The respondents may visit the office of the Petitioner after 30 days to receive the requisite cheques in their name. 7. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off. | 
