These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 32/2013 ajasthan Housing Board versus Gyan Singhby which while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur in complaint no. 787 and 664 of 2012 filed by the respondents/complainants was upheld. These two petitions are being disposed off by this single order and a copy of the same may be placed on each file. 2. Brief facts of the case, as taken from complaint no. 787/2012 filed by Gyan Singh respondent in RP No. 2284/2013 are that the Petitioner/OP launched a multi-storey housing scheme at Mewar apartments, Haldighati Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. The complainants submitted applications for booking flats in the said Scheme by making payment of registration amount of Rs.1,80,000/- each. The approximate cost of the flat was stated to be Rs.17,90,000/-. The complainants were successful in the draw of lots taken out on 14.04.2008. Allotment letters were issued to them. The complainants deposited the total amount of the flat in instalments as demanded by the petitioner/OP. As per commitment made by the Petitioner/OP through the reservation letter dated 22.10.2008, the petitioners were required to issue a allotment letter/possession letter of the flat within a period of 30 months from that letter after allotting the house number. However, the said allotment/possession letter was issued to the complainant on 30.6.2011 meaning thereby that there was a delay of about three months in issuing the said letter. Further, the petitioners raised further demand of Rs.1,96,215/- in RP No. 2284/2013 and a demand of Rs.1,98,784/- in RP No. 2285/2013 from the complainants before taking the possession of the flats. The said amounts were also deposited by the complainants under protest. Further, an additional demand for Rs.97,225/- for parking in RP No. 2284/2013 and that of Rs.57,495/- in RP No. 2285/2013 was also made by the petitioner and the said amount was also paid by the complainants. It has been alleged by the complainants that the petitioners/OP had not completed the construction work of the flats at the time of offer of possession and hence, there was gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. A complaint was, therefore, made before the District Forum and as per orders passed by the District Forum on 5.12.2012 in both the cases, it was ordered that in case of complaint no. 787/2012 the petitioner/OP should pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs.17,90,000/- from 30.03.2011 to 30.06.2011 and also to refund the parking charges of Rs.97,225/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of receiving such payment till refund. District Forum also ordered that for failure of the petitioner to provide all amenities, interest @ 10% p.a. should also be paid on the total amount of Rs.17,90,000+Rs.1,96,215 = Rs.19,86,215/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. In case of RP No. 2285/2013, it was ordered that the petitioner should pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the total amount of Rs.21,40,000/- from 30.03.2011 to 30.06.2011 and to refund the parking charges of Rs.57,495/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of receiving the amount till refund. It was also ordered that 10% interest should be paid for not providing all amenities on the amount Rs.21,40,000/-+Rs.1,98,784/-=Rs.23,38,784/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- for litigation expenses. Against these orders dated 5.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, appeals were filed before the State Commission. The State Commission upheld the orders of the District Forum vide order dated 1.4.2013. It is against this order that the present petitions have been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum has not given any reasons for the grant of interest on the deposited amount under various heads. They have simply stated that interest @ 10% should be given on the entire amount charged by the petitioner till all the amenities are provided. The order is, therefore, quite vague and there has to be a proper rational basis for charging the interest. The order passed by the State Commission was quite vague/sketchy and no reasons have been given by them for upholding the orders of the District Forum. The petitioners had already allowed interest @ 6% p.a. on the deposited amount on the period beyond 30.3.2011 till the offer of possession. 6. Learned counsel for the complainants / respondents stated that the petitioner had not been able to provide proper amenities on the spot and this factor amounted to deficiency in service and hence, they were required to compensate the complainants for the same. 7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. An examination of the order passed by the District Forum in Gyan Singh complaint, in Revision Petition No. 2284/2013, reveals that the District Forum ordered to pay interest @15% p.a. on the total cost of the flat, whereas in Revision Petition No. 2285/2013 (Karuna Bohra complaint), District Forum ordered to pay interest @ 9% on the cost of the flat, i.e., Rs.21,40,000/- and interest @ 12% p.a. on the parking amount of Rs.57,495/. Further, they have ordered in both the cases that interest @ 10% p.a. should be paid by the petitioner on the deposited amount, till all the amenities are provided. It is very clear that the complainants shall be entitled for the said interest, even if a very minor facility is not provided and this will result in unnecessary litigation between the parties. The District Forum should have adopted a more rational approach and given cogent reasons for awarding the interest and should have laid down some specific time-table for completion of the amenities, if they felt that certain facilities had not been provided. Further, it is observed that in Gyan Singh case, the District Forum stated in para 18 of their order that the complainant is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.97,225/- charged for parking space along with an interest @12% p.a. However, while passing the order, they directed that an interest @ 15% p.a. should be paid on this amount, which is an apparent contradiction. 8. Further, it was the duty of the State Commission to examine all aspects of the case minutely and then give specific reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the findings of the District Forum. The order passed by the State Commission is vague and does not give, at all, any reasons for agreeing with the orders of the District Forum. The contention of the State Commission that there is no need to re-analyse all the facts and evidence, is contrary to the provisions of law. The Honle Apex court have also taken a similar view in many cases that it is the duty of the appellate court to give reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with this order. Reference may be made in this regard to the case VPNL versus Mahavir [(2001) 10 SCC 659] 8. Based on this discussion, we are inclined to accept these two revision petitions. The order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the cases are remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to analyse all aspects of the cases and then pass a detailed speaking order giving reasons for their conclusion. No order as to costs.