ORDER Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—Delay of 22 days in filing revision is condoned. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 11.3.2005 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision, Hyderabad dismissing appeal against the order dated 3.12.2004 of a District Forum whereby petitioners/opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to pay amount of Rs. 40,000 along with compensation of Rs. 2,000 jointly and severally to the respondent/complainant. 3. In nutshell, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Respondent purchased two Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos. 206747 and 206746 for Rs. 10,000 each on 6.9.1996 from the petitioners and these were to mature for payment on 6.3.2003. On 27.2.2002 respondent presented both the K.V.Ps. to petitioner No. 1 for pre-mature payment. Respondent alleged that despite personal visits and repeated reminders the amount of K.V.Ps. in question was not paid. Complaint seeking direction to the petitioners to pay maturity amount of Rs. 40,000 with interest @ 24% p.a. from date of maturity and compensation etc. was filed by the respondent. Petitioners contested the complaint admitting that the K.V.Ps. in question were submitted by the respondent at petitioner No. 1 Post Office on 27.2.2002 after signing discharge certificate for Rs. 37,200. However, it was claimed that this amount was paid on 27.2.2002 itself to the respondent. Thereafter on 22.3.2002, respondent preferred complaint to the petitioners alleging misappropriation of the amount of K.V.Ps. by the employees of the petitioner No. 1 and after investigation the complaint was rejected and the respondent intimated accordingly by the letter dated 24.7.2003. 4. Submission advanced by Mr. Manoj Ohri for petitioners was mainly two folds: (i) finding returned by the State Commission that petitioners did not have the right to discharge the K.V.Ps. pre-maturely by paying Rs. 37,200 is factually erroneous and (ii) K.V.Ps. in question matured on 6.3.2003 and in case the payment of Rs. 37,200 was not made the respondent would not have waited till 22.3.2002 to make complaint to the petitioners. 5. Photostat copies of two K.V.Ps. and extract of Rule 13 of Kisan Vikas Patras Rules are placed on the file. They would show that the lock-in period of K.V.Ps. was two years and six months and these could also be encashed pre-maturely after five years or more but less than five years and six months on discounted value including interest as noted therein. and extract of Rule 13 of Kisan Vikas Patras Rules are placed on the file. They would show that the lock-in period of K.V.Ps. was two years and six months and these could also be encashed pre-maturely after five years or more but less than five years and six months on discounted value including interest as noted therein. Thus, the finding recorded by State Commission that the petitioners did not have right to discharge two K.V.Ps. pre-maturely by paying amount of Rs. 37,200 is erroneous. 6. This brings us to second limb of argument referred to above. It is admitted case of both the parties that two K.V.Ps. were submitted for pre-mature encashment on 27.2.2002 with petitioner No. 1 Post Office; discharge certificate on the reverse of K.V.Ps. was signed by the respondent on 27.2.2002. It is a matter of common knowledge that discharge certificate is signed at the time of submitting K.V.Ps. before the payment is made. Therefore, the point which arises for determination is whether amount of Rs. 37,200 was paid by petitioner No. 1 to the respondent or not.? In support of complaint the respondent has filed his affidavit by way of evidence. Reply affidavit of R. Waghmare was filed on behalf of petitioners before the District Forum. In para No. 2 of affidavit the respondent averred that he signed the papers as per the requirement of petitioners bona fide and was not paid the amount and informed by the authority of its having been misappropriated by the employees of Post Office. To be noted that the petitioners did not chose to cross-examine the respondent. Said R. Waghmare who was working as Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Hyderabad City Division in his affidavit averred that as per records the amount of Rs. 37,200 was paid to the respondent on 27.2.2002. It is pertinent to state that Shri Waghmare was not the person dealing with pre-mature encashment of the K.V.Ps. in question and having made payment to the respondent. Said averment made in the affidavit by Shri Waghmare was based only on the records maintained. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, they did not file the affidavit of the official dealings with the K.V.Ps. in question to controvert the affidavit of respondent of having not been paid the amount of Rs. 37,200. Said averment made in the affidavit by Shri Waghmare was based only on the records maintained. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, they did not file the affidavit of the official dealings with the K.V.Ps. in question to controvert the affidavit of respondent of having not been paid the amount of Rs. 37,200. In this backdrop we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the finding returned by Fora below in regard to the respondent not having been paid said amount of Rs. 37,200. 7. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Awarded amount shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondent within six weeks hereof. Revision Petition dismissed. –––