ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member—This miscellaneous application is filed by the petitioner/ applicant for review of our order dated 9.4.2008. 2. We have very carefully gone through this miscellaneous application and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that the District Forum on a complaint being filed by the petitioner/applicant, Mr. Kishan Chand, allowed the complain and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 12,000 along with cost of Rs.3,000. The respondent filed an appeal against that order before the State Commission, which was dismissed maintaining the order passed by the District Forum. Against that order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before us, which was dismissed with the stipulation that in case the awarded amount is not paid within four weeks from the date of order then it shall carry interest @ 6%p.a. from the date of filing the complaint. 3. This miscellaneous application for review is filed before us for grant of interest on the awarded amount. 4. The basic facts are not in dispute that against the order of the District Forum, allowing the complaint and awarding compensation of Rs. 12,000 along with the compensation of Rs. 3,000, no appeal was filed by the petitioner/applicant, meaning thereby that he was satisfied with the relief. It was the opposite party before the District Forum, who filed the appeal, which was dismissed. Prima-facie since the order of the District Forum was not disturbed, the petitioner had no locus to file the revision petition before us. 5. Be that as it may, the main ground to review our order is that the State Commission took almost six years to dispose of the appeal, for which he should be awarded interest as also some compensation. The reason for not dealing with the complaint, appeal, etc. before the District Forum, State Commission could be manifold and could not be made a ground for awarding interest for the period spent before a quasi judicial body. Since the basic amount awarded by the District Forum, did not carry any interest and there was no appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, hence prima facie, the applicant had no locus to file any revision petition before us. 6. Since we have only upheld the order of the District Forum, we see no ground to entertain this miscellaneous application, hence dismissed. Application dismissed. *******