it is also to be noted that such an offer was made by the Respondent much earlier even before the matter reached the District Forum, but the appellant had denied to accept such an 3 (2014) 6 SCC 486 C.A. No.270 of 2012 Page 12 of 35offer. The specific direction, in such circumstances issued in exercise of the revisional power dissuade us to accept the impugned order as one dismissing the complaint in toto and in the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order virtually partakes the character of an order modifying the order of the District Forum which was confirmed by the State Commission. Be that as it may, we will further consider the question whether the NCDRC is justified in reversing the concurrent order in the complaint filed by the appellants in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 14. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal, as noted earlier, that the reversal of the concurrent order(s) of the forums below and the consequential rejection of the complaint made by the