PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2007 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No. 229 of -2- 2007, Unit Trust of India Technologies Services Ltd., has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (C) Delhi dated 27.4.2005 passed in complaint case No. 1079 of 2003, by which order the complaint of the complainant was partly allowed in the following manner: “In view of the above discussion, we hold that the O.P. has committed a deficiency in service. So we direct the OP to pay the amount of his three certificates i.e. Rs. 30,000/- along with dividend amount accrued thereon since 1987 when the certificates were converted and along with interest @ 9% per annum for three years before filing of the instant complaint. We further direct the OP to pay further interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing the instant complaint till its realization. We further hold that the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for compensation towards harassment, pain and mental agony caused to the complainant by the O.P. and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of litigation incurred by the complainant. The O.P. is further directed to comply with the above orders within 30 days from the receipt of the order, failing which he will invite odium U/s 25 & 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986. A copy of the above order be sent to the concerned parties by registered post or be supplied free of cost, on demand.” 2. In appeal the State Commission has however, modified the said order with the direction to the petition herein to pay compoundable interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 30,000/- with effect from 30.10.1984. -3- 3. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. On the first ever date of hearing of the matter on 12.03.2008, the notice was issued to the respondent only on the limited question as to whether in the given facts and circumstances, the State Commission was justified in awarding compound interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 30,000/-. It is pertinent to note here that the respondent-complainant has not challenged the said order passed by the State Commission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner cannot be entirely blamed for any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant but still to bring to an end to the long standing controversy, the petitioner has agreed to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 30,000/-, and rather the said amount stands paid to the respondent. It is disputed by the counsel for the respondent that the entire amount with simple interest @ 12% has been paid. Counsel for the respondent admits having received a sum of
Rs. 75,067/- in all and Rs. 1,29,402.73. In our view going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as noted in the orders of the fora below, the payment of simple interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amount should adequately meet the interest of justice in the case. -4- 5. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of and the order passed by the State Commission is modified in the manner that only simple interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable by the petitioner on the amount of Rs. 30,000/- with effect from 30.10.1984 i.e. the date of deposit of the amount. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. | 
