THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WP NO.5243 OF 2011 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice KG Shankar, J ) The writ petition is filed by the petitioners in EA No.1 of 2011 in CC No.10 of 2010 on the file of AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad. The petitioners laid CC No.10 of 2010 against the 1st respondent herein before the State Commission. The facts not in dispute are that the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.33,50,000/- on 2-5-2006 with the Telegraph Traffic Employees Co- operative Society Limited-1st respondent herein. The petitioners’ case is that the Society paid interest on the deposits upto August, 2008 and thereafter defaulted in paying the interest amount on the fixed deposits. Therefore the petitioners sought for refund of the amounts with interest and damages. The principal amount deposited by the petitioners is Rs.33,50,000/-. However, through orders in CC No.10 of 2010, the State Commission awarded the principal amount of Rs.33,50,000/- only in favour of the petitioners. The State Commission also apportioned the amount payable to each of the writ petitioners. As amounts remained unpaid by the 1st respondent, the petitioners filed EA No.1 of 2011 before the State Commission against the 1st respondent. 2. Albeit the State Commission granted principal amount and did not grant interest over the principal amount, through an erroneous consideration, the State Commission dismissed the EA considering that the EA was not maintainable, since the amount covered by the EA was not awarded by it. 3. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent fairly conceded that the State Commission in fact awarded Rs.33,50,000/- and that EA was filed for the said amount and that therefore, the EA in the circumstances is maintainable. Patently, the impugned order in EA No.1 of 2011 is incorrect as the EA filed was in respect of the order passed by the Commission in CC No.10 of 2010 only. The writ petitioners are legitimately entitled to the amount covered by CC No.10 of 2010. Since the EA was to realize the said amount, the writ petitioners are entitled to the same. Consequently, the State Commission shall reconsider the request of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. The impugned order in these circumstances is, set aside. EA No.1 of 2011 is remitted to the State Commission for its reconsideration. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________________ KG Shankar, J Dated:9th March, 2011 Nrg.