PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1278/11 Housing Board, Haryana Vs. Ashok Mahajan by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was allotted flat No.254 by petitioner/OP under self-financing scheme in Sector 43, Gurgaon for Rs.17.50 lakhs. The cost was revised to Rs.29.00 lakhs recoverable in six instalments. The complainant applied for finance of Rs.5.00 lakhs under the scheme on 28.12.2006 and was sanctioned loan of Rs.5 lakhs. Complainant deposited money from time to time and as per statement given by OP, balance outstanding dues as on 31.12.2008 was Rs.37,690/-. Complainant alleged that OP had charged compound interest instead of simple interest and thus, alleging deficiency filed complaint. OP contested the complaint and submitted that OP has rightly charged compound interest and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and quashed dues of Rs.37,690/- and further directed OP to recalculate the outstanding amount of loan charging 1% per month simple interest in place of compound interest within a month and refund or adjust the amount of interest in outstanding loan with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed, hence, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission and District Forum have committed error in directing calculation of interest as simple interest instead of compound interest because compound interest is chargeable and is being charged from every person and thus committed error in allowing complaint, hence, petition may be accepted and impugned order be set aside. 5. As per terms and conditions of loan policy, loan was to be repaid with interest @ 1% per month and interest was chargeable on the maximum amount outstanding during the calendar month. Nowhere it is mentioned that amount is to be charged as compound interest instead of simple interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argument is devoid of force that only compound interest was to be chargeable. Learned State Commission in its order recorded finding of District Forum as under: . Now the width of the dispute in the present case is confined only to question whether opposite party can charge compound interest from the complainant on the outstanding amount calculated on monthly basis? In this regard we find that complainant was advanced a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by the OP in January 2007 in view of the loan policy approved from the Board of the OP on 28.5.2006 which was conveyed to the complainant vide letter/memo (Ex.C-2) dated 9.6.2006, according to which, the OP introduced a scheme to provide finance for the instalments to be paid by the allottee which would carry interest @ 1% per month or part thereof. The relevant clause No.2 of the letter reads as under:- he loan will carry interest @ 1% per month or part thereof. The interest will be charged on the maximum amount outstanding during the calendar month. However, we find that in aforesaid clause it has been clearly mentioned that loan will carry interest @ 1% p.m. or part thereof. Nowhere has it been mentioned that the OP can charge compound interest. In a catena of judgments it was held by the higher courts that nterestmeans simple interest and it cannot be termed as compound interest. The OPs contended that it was clearly mentioned in the loan policy that interest will be charged on the maximum amount outstanding during the calendar month. As such they can charge interest on maximum outstanding in a month which also includes interest for that month. However, again we find that term aximum outstanding during the calendar month includes only principal outstanding only and not outstanding principal amount with outstanding interest. The OP was not able to point out any specific clause in the agreement/loan policy for charging compound interest from the complainant and as such in the absence of any specific clause the OPs cannot charge compound interest from the complainant. Therefore, in view of the facts stated above and position of law explained herein above, the stand taken by the OP is unfounded and we hereby hold that act and conduct of the OP in charging compound interest in place of simple interest amounts to deficiency on its part Learned State Commission further observed : he dispute between the parties is with respect to the interest on the loan amount. It is proved on the record that on the loan amount, simple interest @ 1% per month was to be charged but the appellant opposite party was charging compound interest on the loan amount despite the fact there was a clause in which it had been mentioned that loan would carry interest @ 1% p.m. or part thereof. In this way, the demand of Rs.37,690/- raised by the appellant-opposite party from the complainant was wrong and illegal. Thus, the appellant-opposite party has rightly been held deficient in service 6. Learned State Commission also agreed with the finding of the District Forum which is in accordance with law and I do not find any infirmity, illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned State Commission. There is no ground to disagree with the finding of learned State Commission and District Forum and it is further observed that by no stretch of imagination, compound interest can be charged by the petitioner from the Complainant-Respondent and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.