The court affirmed that the cause of action for claiming refunds is ongoing due to the continuous retention of funds by the petitioner, thus adhering to the statutory period under Section 69 of the Act.

1. This revision petition has been filed under S.58 (1)(b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 23.1.2023 of the State Commission in Appeal No. 22 of 2022 arising out of the Order dated 24.12.2021 of the District Commission in Complaint No. 10 of 2021.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel of the Petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 24.12.2021 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 23.1.2023 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3. The Complainant has been filed with the grievance which appears to be like this. The Complainant (Respondent herein) required the bricks for construction of his house and in that connection had contacted the Opp. Party (Petitioner herein). The brick rate was settled at the rate of Rs 2600 per thousand .The Complainant deposited Rs. 35,000 with the Opp. Party and in lieu of the same, the Opp. Party issued a challan / receipt in the form of acknowledgement which has been adduced in evidence and which contains the details of the transaction like the name of Complainant, village name, amount of money, rate of bricks, Tin and signature etc.
Without entering into the narration in any further details which have already been dealt with and enumerated in the orders passed by two Fora below, the long and short of the grievance of the Complainant is that the bricks were never delivered to him and his money too has been unfairly and unduly retained by Petitioner / Opp. Party.
The Complainant kept asking and trying to get his money back but on that end also he got nothing save false promises and false assurances.

4. Finally when all hopes got lost and all the patience of Complainant got exhausted he decided to file the complaint. The district commission after hearing the parties allowed the Complaint and passed the following award which may be quoted hereinbelow:
Complaint Case No. 10 of 2011 is allowed. The proprietor of the Opp. Party S.M. Eint Udyog is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 35,000 (Thirty Five thousand) deposited by the complainant along with 6% of annual interest within two months from 4.10.2014 till the date of realisation. If the amount is not paid within the prescribed period, the rate of interest will be payable at the rate of 9%.
Apart from this, the Opp. Party will also pay Rs. 10,000 (Ten Thousand) towards mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and Rs. 5,000 (Five Thousand) towards litigation expenses.

5. Aggrieved by the said Order the Petitioner / Opp. Party approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission vide its impugned Order modified the Order only to the extent that it set aside the direction of payment Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses but affirmed the rest of the order of the District Forum and accepted the complainant's version. The operative portion of the Order of the State Commission read as:
The present appeal is allowed partly. The order and judgement passed by the Ld. District Forum is modified and the Opp. Party is directed to return Rs. 35,000. The aforesaid amount is to be paid in terms of the order and judgement passed by the Ld. District Forum.
The ordered passed by the Ld. District Forum towards mental agony Rs. 10,000 and litigation expenses Rs. 5000 is set aside and rest order is confirmed.
The appellant is ordered to comply with the present order within two months.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission the Opp. Party is before this Commission through the present revision petition.

7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Opp. Party. The defence plead