ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.06.2006 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in First Appeal no. 2532 of 1994. By this order, the State Commission directed as under: he District Forum, therefore, awarded to the complainant interest on the amount of Rs.15,801/ for the period from 01.02.1988 to 25.02.1989 i.e., upto the time when the first authority was issued. On the second authority letter, for the amount of Rs.2682/-, interest was awarded from 01.02.1988 to 24.06.1990 @ 12% per annum. The forum also awarded to the complainant interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.224/- for the period from 01.02.1988 to 25.11.1992. During the course of arguments, the complainant admitted that the amount of Rs.446/- with respect of insurance loan had been correctly deducted in the first authority letter. We are of the opinion that other amounts of Rs.2660/- and Rs.874/- i.e., in all Rs.3534/- were not correctly deducted as undeducted premiums from the salary. Out of this amount of Rs.3534/-, State Insurance Department has itself issued second authority letter to the complainant for Rs.2682/- and third authority letter for Rs.224/- The learned counsel for the respondents states that there are certain missing entries relating to premium from March 1962 to June 1964 and September 1964 to February 65 which are shown as unrecovered. There is nothing to show that the State Insurance Department ever communicated to the complainant that premium with respect to above periods had not been deducted from his salary. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.628/- from the State Insurance Department as it has not been shown that the premium had not been deducted from the monthly salary in relation to the above periods. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal and direct the opposite parties respondents to pay to the complainant/appellant Rs.628/- within two months 2. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chittorgarh, (in short, he District Forum claiming the balance amount of the State insurance policy that was due to him. He was a State Government employee and retired on 31.08.1988. His (State) insurance policy had matured on 01.02.1988 and the State Insurance Department issued to him three successive authority letters for payment of Rs.19,922/-, Rs.2682/- and Rs.224/-. However, as these payments were made after considerable delay (since the date of maturity of the insurance policy), the District Forum awarded interest by directing as under: he case is partially admitted and ordered that the Insurance Department will pay interest @ 12% per annum on (i) Rs.15,801/- for the period 01.02.1988 to 25.02.1989 (ii) Rs.2,682/- 01.02.1988 to 24.06.1990 (iii) Rs.224/- 01.02.1988 to 25.11.1998 (iv) The interest of the above-mentioned period and amount will be paid within a month. If not paid within a month, then the rate of interest will be 18% per annum (v) The applicant will receive Rs.100/- for the expenses of the suit. (vi) The copy of the decision be sent by post to both the parties 3. The complainant appealed against this order of the District Forum, leading to the above-mentioned order of the State Commission. Still aggrieved, the complainant has filed this revision petition before us. 4. Considering the indigent condition of the petitioner/complainant, this Commission appointed Ms. Astha Tyagi as Amicus Curiae to assist with the case of the petitioner/complainant by its order dated 01.08.2011. 5. We have heard Ms. Astha Tyagi, Amicus Curiae and Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr. Bhagwati stated that the respondents had complied with the order of the District Forum and paid interest @ 12% per annum, in addition to the amount directed by the State Commission in the impugned order. However, Ms. Tyagi pointed out that the petitioner was entitled to higher rate of interest and that the additional amount of Rs.628/- ordered by the State Commission was yet to be paid to the petitioner. 7. The point involved in this petition is thus only with regard to the rate of interest that is payable according to the order of the Fora below. We find that the order of the District Forum was not challenged by any of the respondents. As a result, the order of the District Forum attained finality qua the respondents, as per section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The modification ordered by the State Commission did not touch upon the question of the rate of interest payable by the respondents on the principal amounts on account of delays in release them. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum in accordance with the order of the District Forum. 8. In view of the submissions of Mr. Bhagwati that some payments have been made to the complainant, we direct the respondents to re-work the amount payable to the petitioner in terms of the order of the District Forum with interest @ 18% per annum as against 12% per annum on the respective amounts as per the periods mentioned in the order of the District Forum. In addition, the respondent shall pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs.628/- ordered by the State Commission with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.09.1996. Needless to add, the payment made so far shall be deducted suitably. 9. The revision petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs in these proceedings and those before the State Commission. 10. Before parting with the matter, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. Astha Tyagi, Amicus Curiae.