Limited notice on the point of interest was issued to the respondent. Facts leading to the filing of this complaint by the complainant/respondent no.2 are that the he has availed a loan of Rs.5,35,000/- from the petitioner for pursuing the higher studies in Australia. The complainant/Respondent No.1 stood guarantee for the -2- loan. It was alleged by the complainant that while the loan was being repaid, due to some misunderstanding, the petitioner filed a Suit in Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai for recovery of money against the complainant. The Suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner, appeal against which was also dismissed. The respondent/complainant filed a second appeal before the High Court. During the pendnecy of the second appeal after negotiations, a settlement was arrived at and the respondent paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the petitioner to settle all the outstanding amounts and costs. The terms of the settlement read as follows : “1) This payment covers the outstanding balance of the loan amount (principal & interest) and all costs incurred related to this loan account (inclusive of legal costs). 2) The account is considered fully settled and closed. 3) No other payment is required or due to the bank from Mr.K.Sivakumar & Mr.S.Krithivasan. 4) All the relevant insurance and property documents pledged with the bank against this loan will be immediately returned.” -3- Document of settlement was executed on 26.6.2001. Some officer of the petitioner added a note on the settlement in his own handwriting, which reads as under : “Received DD for Rs.1,10,000/- as full and final settlement under compromise settlement. The amount will be kept in ‘No Lien A/c’. and will be appropriated towards loan account once the appeal is withdrawn. The documents will be returned on receipt of the same from the court.” Petitioner, after the receipt of Rs.1,10,000/- by way of final settlement, did not record or report full satisfaction. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum attributing deficiency in service for not recording full satisfaction in spite of the settlement arrived at. The complainant prayed for a compensation of Rs.1 lakh. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay jointly and severally a compensation of Rs.1 lakh and costs of Rs.5,000/- within 8 weeks from the date of order, failing which compensation amount was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization. -4- Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The letter dated 2.6.2001 clearly proves that even after receipt of the sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, the petitioner did not record/report full satisfaction. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner did not record/report full satisfaction as the respondents had failed to withdraw the appeal. Aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Revision petition came up for preliminary hearing on 23.9.2010. On that day, counsel for the petitioner raised a limited point regarding interest. According to him, the fora below have erred in granting interest on the compensation awarded by them. Notice limited to the point of interest was issued subject to payment of Rs.1,05,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent. Petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the respondent to meet the litigation and other allied expenses, which was to be de hors the result of the Revision Petition. -5- It is not disputed before us that the sum of Rs.1,05,000/- as directed by the fora below has been paid to the respondent. The sum of Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses has also been paid. The only point, which requires to be determined, is whether the respondent is entitled to receive the interest on the amount of interest. Compensation is awarded for the deficiency in service. Interest on amount of compensation would amount to double benefit. Interest is awarded on the principal amount in order to compensate a person for being deprived of the use of his money. Since the compensation is paid for the lapse on the part of the opposite party, interest on the said amount cannot be paid. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is partly allowed. Order of the fora below is modified. Direction to pay the interest on the amount of compensation is asset aside and ordered to be deleted. | 
