This order will dispose of both the revision petitions as the point of law involved in both the cases is same. Petitioner/Corporation was the opposite party before the District Forum. Complainants/respondents purchased sunflower seeds in October, 1998 from the petitioner/Corporation and sowed in their fields in Sy. Nos.678/2, 687, 716, 639, 409, 410/1, 132, 131/1, 560, 639, 601, 26/1 of Maddur Village. Seeds did not germinate as a result of which the respondents/complainants lost yield of 6 to 7 quintals per acre valued at -3- Rs.1300/- to 1500/- per quintal. Respondents reported this matter to the Assistant Director, Nandyal. Assistant Agriculture Officer inspected their fields and observed that non-germination was on account of the substandard and defective seeds supplied by the petitioner/Corporation. Respondents filed the complaint seeking Rs.8,000/- per acre towards loss of yield and Rs.1,000/- towards cultivation expenses. Petitioner on being served entered appearance and controverted the allegations made in the complaint. District Forum on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/Corporation to pay to the respondents/complainants Rs.6,636/- per acre towards loss of the yield in pro-rata to the extent of their cultivation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost and Rs.1,500/- towards mental agony to each of the complainants. District Forum did not award any interest. Petitioner accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file any appeal. Respondents/complainants filed appeals No.249 & 250 of 2006 before the State Commission seeking interest on the awarded amount. State Commission allowed the appeals and modified the order of the District Forum by awarding interest @ 9% p.a. per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. -4- Petitioner being aggrieved has filed these revision petitions. As mentioned above, petitioner accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file appeal. In the appeal filed by the respondents/complainants, State Commission has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. The only point which falls for our consideration is whether the complainants/respondents are entitled to the interest on the awarded amount. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Honle Supreme Court in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1198 has held that interest is not a penalty or a punishment at all, but is the normal accretion on capital, use of which is denied by the person illegally keeping the money with it. Para-7 of the said order reads as under: - t may be mentioned that there is misconduct about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if had to pay a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had paid that amount to 10 years ago, would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest to Since the respondents/complainants were deprived of the use of their money, they were entitled to get interest on the amount the use of which they were denied. In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any merit in these revision petitions and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.