Aggrieved by the common order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal nos. 1607, 1608 and 1609 of 2011, the original complainants have approached this Commission with these petitions purportedly filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeals before the State Commission were filed against the orders dated 07.06.2008 passed by III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore in Consumer Complaint Nos. 359, 361 and 360 of 2008 by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaints of the complainants thereby directing the opposite party builder, promoter to refund the deposited amounts alongwith interest @18% p.a. as also to pay compensation of Rupees two lakh to each of the complainants. In appeals, the State Commission though maintained the finding and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party builder-promoter but had modified the order of the District Forum in the manner that the award of compensation of Rupees Two lakh to each of the complainants was set aside and the rest of the order made by the District Forum was upheld. 2. We have heard Mr. S. Patil, counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission ought to have affirmed the entire order passed by the District Forum including the order for payment of Rupees two lakh as compensation which coupled with the interest awarded to the complainants. In our view, going by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of haziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh[2005 9 SCC 573] and angalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank[(2007) 6 SCC 711], the State Commission was justified in taking the view which it had taken. In our view, the award of interest @18% p.a. on the deposited amount is a just and proper compensation to the complainants / petitioners. Award of further compensation on the deposited amount would be seen as a case of double jeopardy particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case. Revision petitions are accordingly dismissed as without any merit.