(1.) -The order will govern the disposal of application dated 15.7.2002 filed by the appellant/opposite party for refund of Rs. 88,250/- with interest by the respondent/complainant.
(2.) Undisputed facts are that the respondent filed a complaint seeking certain reliefs against the appellant which was allowed by the State Commission by the order dated 16.11.1994. Dissatisfied with this order, the appellant filed appeal which was accepted by this Commission by the order dated 9.5.2002 and complaint dismissed. Pursuant to interim order dated 8.2.1995 made in appeal, the appellant furnished two demand drafts both dated 25.8.1995 for Rs. 78,000/- and Rs. 10,250/- totalling Rs. 88,250/- and amount whereof was withdrawn by the respondent. It is also not in dispute that respondent filed M.P. No. 173 of 2002 seeking review of the order dated 9.5.2002 which was dismissed by the order dated 29.9.2003 by this Commission.
(3.) Order dated 29.9.2003 would show that review application was dismissed on the grounds that on the date the application was filed this Commission did not have the power of review in view of decision in Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Others. v. Bombay Hospital Trust, 1994 (4) SCC 325, as also on merits. Respondent thereafter filed M.P. No. 2 of 2004 seeking review of the order dated 29.9.2002 and this application was dismissed by the order dated 16.8.2004. It was pointed out by the respondent that mainly against aforesaid order dated 9.5.2002 he had filed writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the order dated 15.9.2004 of High Court of Delhi and against that order he has filed L.P.A. Though L.P.A. was lying under objection but after removal of objections, it is now to be listed before a Division Bench. Having heard the respondent and Mr. Aditya Narain for appellant, we are of the view that after dismissal of two review applications filed by the respondent, the order dated 9.5.2002 has attained finality as regards refund of said amount of Rs. 88,250/- by the respondent. To be only noted that neither the said interim order dated 8.2.1995 nor order dismissing appeal dated 9.5.2002 provides for payment of interest on the said amount.