JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER The above noted revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 14.11.2012 whereby the appeals preferred by the above noted respondents complainants against the order of the District Forum Rangareddy District, Hyderabad were accepted by Andhra Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, he State Commission and the respondent opposite party was directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- with 9% interest thereon to the respondent V.Satish Chandra and Rs.30,000/- with 9% interest thereon to the respondent M.Vishveshwer Rao. Both the respondents were awarded cost of Rs.2000/- each. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petitions are that pursuant to the applications submitted by the respondents, the petitioner Corporation ( earlier known as Andhra Pradesh Housing Board) allotted them two bed room flat measuring 685 sq. ft in the housing project undertaken by the petitioner. The tentative cost of each flat as per the allotment letters was Rs. 10,30,000/- to be paid in instalments. The respondent V Satish Chandra deposited the entire consideration amount of Rs.10,30,000/- whereas the respondent M.Vishveshwer Rao deposited a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- against the cost of the flat. It is the case of the respondents that on their visit to the site, they found that the construction of the flats was sub-standard. Therefore, respondents vide their respective applications dated 16.10.2009 & 14.10.2009 applied for refund of money paid by them alongwith interest. The petitioner Corporation, however, refunded sum of Rs.9,08,000/- to the respondent V.Satish Chandra after deducting sum of Rs.1,22,000/-. Similarly, the respondent M.Vishveshwer Rao was refunded Rs.8.00 lacs after deducting Rs.30,000/-. Being aggrieved by the deduction made by the petitioner Corporation, the respondents filed separate complaints seeking direction to the petitioner to pay the deducted amounts to them alongwith interest. Complainant V.Satish Chandra demanded a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- whereas the respondent M.Vishweshwer Rao demanded a sum of Rs.1,29,600/- including interest. 3. The petitioner opposite party resisted the complaints. In its respective written statements, the opposite party admitted that the respondents were allotted two bed room flats in response to their applications. The tentative cost of each flat was Rs.10,30,000/-, which however, was subject to change depending upon the cost incurred on the construction. It is also admitted that the respondent Satish Chandra had paid Rs.10,30,000/- against the consideration of the flat whereas complainant M.Vishveshwer Rao had paid a sum of Rs.8,30,000/-. The OP denied that the construction of the flat was of inferior quality. The petitioner opposite pleaded in the written statement that the opposite party corporation operates on o loss no profit basis. The total cost of construction of flat was much higher than the tentative price. Therefore, the respondent V.Satish Chandra was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and respondent M.Vishveshwer Rao was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,90,000/- The respondents were unable to pay the balance amounts. Thus, vide their respective letter dated 16.10.2009 & 14.