ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the J and K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') as also the award dated 23.11.2004 passed by the Divisional Consumer Forum, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Divisional Forum') whereby the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 herein has been allowed and the petitioner herein has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7200/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the respondent No. 1. Besides this, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses to respondent No. 1. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under Section 10 of Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act (for short 'the Act') before the Divisional Forum alleging therein that the petitioner had wrongfully retained a sum of Rs. 16000/- that was deposited by respondent No. 1 with the petitioner in connection with repayment of House Building Advance. The record of the case shows that respondent No. 1 had availed House Building Advance of Rs. 40,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs. 16000/- was sanctioned and released in favour of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 3 herein, whereas, the balance amount of Rs. 24000/- was released by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1. The loan amount was repayable in monthly installments. 3. It appears that while repaying the loan amount, the respondent No. 1 deposited a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- with the petitioner from time to time, though he had taken only a sum of Rs. 24000/- from the petitioner. The record further shows that the excess amount deposited by respondent No. 1 with the petitioner was retained by the petitioner until 20.03.1998, when a sum of Rs. 8427/- was refunded by the petitioner to respondent No. 1. 4. With the aforesaid background of the facts, respondent No. 1 approached the Divisional Forum with a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, on the grounds that the excess amount of money was wrongfully retained by the petitioner herein. 5. 4. With the aforesaid background of the facts, respondent No. 1 approached the Divisional Forum with a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, on the grounds that the excess amount of money was wrongfully retained by the petitioner herein. 5. The Divisional Forum vide its award dated 23.11.2004 allowed the aforesaid complaint of respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs. 7200/- constituting the interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs. 16000/- that was retained by the petitioner herein. Future interest at the rate of 9% per annum along with litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- was also awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein. 6. The aforesaid award came to be challenged by the petitioner herein by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal was dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 27.04.2007 on the grounds that the same was barred by limitation and that there was no justification for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Besides this, the State Commission also discussed the merits of the case and held that the petitioner herein has unauthorizedly retained the amount and that the same amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, the award passed by the Divisional Forum was upheld by the State Commission. 7. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging both the award of the Divisional Forum as well as the order passed in appeal by the State Commission. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The respondents did not put in appearance despite having been served. 9. The admitted facts, which appear from the record of the case are that vide the sanction order dated 27.08.1984, a sum of Rs. 16000/- was released by the petitioner as House Building Advance in favour of the respondent No. 1 and a further sum of Rs. 8000/- was released in terms of sanction order dated 04.11.1984. Prior to this, a sum of Rs. 16000/- was released as House Building Advance in favour of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 3 in terms of sanction order dated 15.12.1983. Thus, in all, respondent No. 1 had availed House Building Advance of Rs. 40,000/- out of which, a sum of Rs. Prior to this, a sum of Rs. 16000/- was released as House Building Advance in favour of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 3 in terms of sanction order dated 15.12.1983. Thus, in all, respondent No. 1 had availed House Building Advance of Rs. 40,000/- out of which, a sum of Rs. 24000/- had been advanced by the petitioner herein. It is the admitted case of the parties that respondent No. 1 had deposited a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- with the petitioner towards liquidation of the loan amount in the following manner: Amount Date Rs. 5000/- 12-02-1987 Rs. 5000/- 04-11-1987 Rs. 5000/- 22-10-1988 Rs. 5000/- 10-09-1991 Rs. 5000/- 30-03-1993 Rs. 10000/- 22-10-1993 Rs. 5000/- 02-06-1994 10. The petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 1 had deposited an excess amount of Rs. 16000/- with it, out of which, a sum of Rs. 7573/- was adjusted towards the interest on the loan amount, whereas balance amount of Rs. 8427/- was refunded to respondent No. 1 on 20.03.1998. This has not been disputed by the respondent No. 1. It is not the case of the respondent No. 1 that he had at any stage made a demand for refund of excess amount from the petitioner. In these circumstances as soon as the issue regarding excess deposit was detected by the petitioner, the excess amount came to be refunded to the respondent No. 1. 11. Had it been a case of neglect or refusal on the part of the petitioner to refund the excess amount to respondent No. 1 despite a demand from him, it might have amounted to unlawful retention of money by the petitioner but in this case admittedly no demand for refund of excess amount was made by the respondent No. 1. Thus it cannot be stated that the petitioner had unauthorizedly retained any amount belonging to the respondent No. 1. 12. A perusal of the chart depicting deposit of amount by respondent No. 1 with the petitioner reveals that the last installment of Rs. 5000/- was deposited by respondent No. 1 with the petitioner on 02.06.1994. The refund of the excess amount has been made by petitioner to respondent No. 1 on 20.03.1998, which means that the petitioner has retained the excess amount deposited by respondent No. 1 with it up to 20.03.1998. 5000/- was deposited by respondent No. 1 with the petitioner on 02.06.1994. The refund of the excess amount has been made by petitioner to respondent No. 1 on 20.03.1998, which means that the petitioner has retained the excess amount deposited by respondent No. 1 with it up to 20.03.1998. Once, respondent No. 1 had liquidated the loan amount, the petitioner had no business to accept further deposits from respondent No. 1, even if, the same was done by respondent No. 1 without any demand from the petitioner. 13. It is a fact of common knowledge that as per the Financial Code, every Government department is required to reconcile income and expenditure at the end of each month as also at the end of each Financial year. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that they could not detect the excess amount accepted by them from respondent No. 1 and that the same could be detected only in the year 1998 when they refunded the excess amount to respondent No. 1. 14. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Divisional Forum as well as by the State Commission as a result of which they have landed themselves into error in holding that the petitioner had unauthorizedly retained the excess amount. The said finding is unsustainable in law and as such liable to be set aside. 15. There is another aspect of this case which requires to be noticed. This aspect relates to calculation of the amount that was unauthorizedly retained by the petitioner in the instant case. According to the award passed by the Divisional Forum, excess amount of Rs. 16000/- was paid by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. It appears that this calculation has been made by taking into account only the principal amount of loan advanced by petitioner to respondent No. 1 and not the interest accrued thereon until its liquidation. Thus, the Divisional Forum has fallen into error while calculating the amount that was unauthorizedly retained by the petitioner. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the award dated 23.11.2004 passed by the Divisional Forum as upheld by the State Commission in appeal vide its order dated 27.04.2007 is set aside. The petition along with connected application stand disposed of.