HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARDversusBISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL AND ORS.

                      [2014] 4 S.C.R. 141


 HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD                         A
                               v.
          BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL AND ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 3122 of 2006)

                      MARCH 26, 2014                                B

                [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND
              PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

     Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Deficiency of services.         c
     Agricultural Marketing Board allotting sites to the
respondents for doing business of grain on payment of 25%
of price of plots - Failure of Board to notify the Mandi as
market Area and develop and provide basic amenities in the          D
said locality - Respondent also stopped the payment of
balance instalments - Complaint by respondent before the
Consumer Forum - Held: Maintainable - Appellant-board as
service provider is obligated to facilitate the utilisation and
enjoyment of plots as intended by the allottees - Inaction on
the part of Board in providing requisite facilities for more than   E
a decade clearly established deficiency of services as
respondents were prevented from carrying out the grain
business - In such circumstances, levy of penal charges on
respondent would be grossly unfair - However, the
respondents were also incorrect in refusing to pay the              F
instalments and violating the terms of the instalment lett~r -
Adequate relief was granted even to respondents by the
District forum and State Commission by awarding interest @
12% p. a on entire deposited amount.
                                                                    G
    The Area of New grain Mandi, Adampur was notified
as market area by notification dated 16.11.1971. In 1980,
the State Government notified a sub market yard of New
Grain Market, Adampur. The said area was transferred to
                              141                                   H
    142       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A the appellant board on 24.01.1986.

         The appellant made allotment of the plots to the
    respondents on deposit of 25% of price of the plots. In
    the allotment letter dated 25.07 .1991, the method of
8   payment and consequences of non-payment were laid
    down. The respondents failed to make the balance
    payment. The appellant-board issued a demand notice on
    the respondents. The respondents did not make the
    payment and instead filed a complaint before the District
C   Forum alleging deficiency of service on part of appellant-
    board on the ground of failure of notifying the Adampur
    Mandi as Market Area and failure to develop and provide
    basic amenities in the said locality. The District Forum
    held that it is admitted that due to the omission on part
    of the appellant, no business could be done in the Mandi
D   and the boundary walls which were essential for the
    business, were not provided, the complainants/
    respondents were deprived of doing the grain business
    for which the plots were purchased and as the area was
    not notified as a sub-yard, there was a grave deficiency
E   of service. The Forum awarded the respondents interest
    at 12% per annum on the entire deposited amount after
    two years from the date of issuance of allotment letters
    to the respondents till the development and notification
    of the area in question was not done. The respondents
F   were directed to deposit the remaining balance amount
    and the appellant-Board was directed not to levy any
    charge, penalty or interest on the same. The State
    Commission and National Commission upheld the order
    of the District Forum. The instant appeal was filed
G   challenging the order of the National Commission.
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1. The Statutory Boards and Development
  Authorities which are allotting sites with the promise of
H development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of
    HARYANASTATEAGRICULTURAL MARKT. BOARD v.           143
             BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL

consumer forum in case of deficiency of services. [Para       A
6] [150-H; 151-A]
     2. Though in the instant case providing of amenities
is not a condition precedent as per the terms of the
allotment letters, however, the allotments were made          8
when the plots were in the development stage -on the
condition that they be used only for auction and trading
of grains, therefore, the present auction is different from
a free public auction or an auction on "as is where is
basis". In such a scenario the appellant board as service     C
provider is obligated to facilitate the utilization and
enjoyment of the plots as intended by the allottees and
set out in the allotment letter. [Para 7] [151-F-G; 152-A]

    U. T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet
Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 460; Kamataka Industrial Areas D
and Development Board v. Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
(2007) 10 SCC 481: 2007 (8) SCR 270; Name Construction
(P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 359: 2012 (4) SCR
574; Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994)
1 SCC 243: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 615 - relied on.               E
     3. The inaction on the part of the appellant in
providing the requisite facilities for more than a decade
clearly established deficiency of services as the
respondents were prevented from carrying out the grain
                                                              F
business. However, the respondents were also incorrect
in refusing to pay the instalments and violating the terms
of the instalment letter. Thus, considering the
surrounding circumstances wherein the appellant has
been unable to develop the area for more than two
decades and the resultant loss sulfered by the                G
respondents, there is a need for proportionate relief as
the levy of penal interest and other charges on the
respondents would be grossly unfair. In these
circumstances, no grounds have been made out by the
appellant to interfere with the order passed by the           H
    144       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A National Commission. Adequate relief has been granted
  even to the respondents/complainants by awarding
  interest@ 12 per cent per annum on the entire deposited
  amounts. [Paras 8 and 9) [154-G-H; 155-A-D]

B       Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh & Ors. v. Shantikunj
    Investment (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 109: 2006 (2) SCR
    768; Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Raj Pal
    (2011) 13 sec 504 - relied on.
                         Case Law Reference:
c         (2009) 4 sec 460           Relied on         Para 6
          2007 (8) SCR 270           Relied on         Para 6
          2012 (4) SCR 57 4          Relied on         Para 6
D         1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 615 Relied on            Para 6
          2006 (2 ) SCR 768          Relied on         Para 7
          (2011) 13 sec 504          Relied on         Para 7

E       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3122 of 2006.

        From the Judgment and order dated 13.04.2005 of the
    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
    Delhi in Revision Petition Nos. 534, 535, 536 and 537 of 2005.
F
        Luv K. Singh, Krishanu Adhikary, Sushi! K Singh, Rekha
    Pandey for the Appellant.

      Parmanand Gaur, N.S. Dalal, J.B. Mudgil, R.K. Gupta,
G Bankey Bihari Sharma for the Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. The present appeal
    has been filed assailing the order dated April 13, 2005 passed
H
     HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKT. BOARD v.    145
  BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.)

by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission              A
(hereinafter referred to as "the National Commission") in
Revision Petition Nos. 534-537 of 2005, affirming the order
dated November 10, 2004 passed by the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter
referred to as "the State Commission"), which further confirmed     B
the order dated September 20, 2001 passed by the District
Forum.

     2. The facts of the case briefly are as follows :

     a) By a notification dated November 16, 1971, the              C
Haryana State Government under Section 7 of the Punjab
Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the said Act'), notified the area of New Grain Mandi,
Adampur as Market Area. Subsequently, in the year 1974, the
areas/limits were further extended by five kilometers. In 1980,     D
the State Government notified a sub-market yard of New Grain
Mandi, Adampur. The Colonization Department of the State by
a letter dated January 24, 1986, transferred the said area to
the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, the appellant
herein.                                                             E

     b) The respondents herein were allotted plots by the
appellant, being plot Nos. 17, 7, 16 and 14 upon depositing
the 25% of the price of the said plots. The method of payment
and the consequences for non-payment of any instalment would
                                                                    F
appear from the allotment letter dated July 25, 1991. Admittedly,
the respondents did not pay the instalments in terms of the
allotment letters. The grounds mentioned by the respondents
for non-payment of such instalments were the failure on the part
of the appellant to provide basic amenities such as sewerage,
electricity, roads etc. at the said Adampur Mandi Area.             G

     c) On non-payment of the instalments, the appellant called
upon the respondents to make the balance payments, being
75% of the cost with interest and penalty charges as prescribed
in the said allotment letter. The respondents did not pay the
                               )




    146       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 ~.C.R.


A same and file·d a complaint before the District Forum alleging·
  deficiency of services, failure to notify the Adampur Mandi as
  Market Area and failure to develop and provide basic amenities
  in the said locality. The appellant opposed the complaint on the
  ground that the respondents failed to make the payments of the
B instalments and further that one of the complainants was not
  dealing with the sale and purchase of agricultural produce by
  himself and instead had sublet the shop to someone else.

          d) The District Forum appointed a Senior Member of the
C   Forum as the Local Commissioner to inspect the said area and
    to file a report. The Local Commissioner filed a report stating
    that the area was developed with civic amenities and platforms
    were constructed in front of the shops. However, it is admitted
    that the complainant is not in a position to run the business in
    the market area as the same has not been notified by a
D   notification and/or order declaring it as a sub-yard for the
    purpose of running the business. The District Forum held by
    order dated March 4, 1998 that the notification dated October
    31, 1980 is not applicable since the land was auctioned in 1991
    and further, the same was not in the ownership of the appellant
E   and no business was transacted by the complainant at the
    Adampur Mandi. The District Forum held that since no
    notification was issued declaring the said area as sub-yard, it
    amounts to deficiency of service and the appellant was directed
    to withdraw the demand notice and further directed not to
F   charge any interest on the instalments. The appellant filed first
    appeal before the State Commission, being First Appeal
    No.362 of 1998. The State Commissioner by order dated
    March 3, 1998 remanded the matter to the District Forum
    holding that the appointment of Local Commissioner, Shri Arya,
G   being a member of the District Forum vitiated the proceedings.

        e) Thereafter, the District Forum took up the matter and
    appointed an Advocate - Mr. G.L. Balhara - as the Local
    Commissioner, to make an inspection and to file a report. The
    appellant herein on April 20, 2000, once again issued demand
H
    HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKT. BOARD v.             14 7
 BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

notices to the respondents demanding the payments. The main A
contention of the respondents being the complainants was that
although the area was not notified by the appellant-Board as a
market area, they were unable to conduct any grain business
in the shops for which they had purchased the said plots; and
further alleged that no basic amenities, i.e., sewerage, roads, B
parao, electricity etc. had been provided by the Board, and that
there were no boundary walls and gates of the market area
which were a necessity in such Mandi; furthermore, there were
heaps of debris lying around the shops. In these circumstances,
the plots allotted were redundant.                               C

     f) The appellants contended that the complainants are not
consumers and there is no deficiency of service. The
respondents failed to construct the booths in two years' time
even after getting the licences. Furthermore, the respondents
are not dealing with the agricultural produce instead they have D
sublet the plots in question to other persons. According to the
appellants, the amenities of sewerage, water supply and
electricity were provided and construction of a platform was
also done by them. An Additional Mandi was established,
according to the appellant, by the Colonization Department and E
subsequently transferred to them in 1986. The Colonization
Department, in 1980, duly notified the same. The District Forum .
after perusing the report dated April 25, 2000 filed by the Local
Commissioner - Mr. Balhara, Advocate -- held that it is admitted
by both the parties that the Additional Mandi has no boundary F
walls and gates and that there has been no notification by the
appellant-Board, further no auction has been made by the
respondents and the debris are lying around the shops. In these
circumstances, the District Forum by order dated September
20, 2001 held that it is admitted that due to the omission of the G
appellant, no business could be done in the Mandi and the
boundary walls which are essential for the business, were not
provided. It is further held that the notification dated October 31,
1980 has no manner of application since the land was
transferred to the appellant in 1986 and the shops were H
    148       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   auctioned in 1981. The District Forum further held that due to
    the omission of the appellant, the complainants/respondents
    herein were deprived of doing the grain business for which the
    plots were purchased and in the absence of the notification of
    the area as a sub-yard, the District Forum held that there was
B   a grave deficiency of service. The Forum awarded the
    respondents interest at 12% per annum on the entire deposited
    amount after two years from the date of issuance of allotment
    letters to the respondents till the development and notification
    of the area in question is not done. The re~ondents were
c   directed to deposit the remaining balance a~unt and the
    appellant-Board was directed not to levy any charge, penalty
    or interest on the same. However, the Forum refused to allow
    the compensation as prayed by the respondents and directed
    the appellants to develop the area within a month.

D        g) Being aggrieved, the appellant went in appeal before
    the State Commission. Cross-appeals were also filed by the
    respondents before the State Commission, seeking
    enhanGement of the rate of interest from 12% to 18% per annum
    and further sought compensation. On November 10, 2004, both
E   the appeals were dismissed. The State Commission upheld the
    order of the District Forum holding that the report of the Local
    Commissioner did not raise any objection with regard thereto
    nor placed any notification before the District Forum. In these
    circumstances, the appellant herein filed a revision petition
F   before the National Commission resulting in dismissal, hence,
    the matter has come up in appeal before us.

          3. It is the case of the appellant that all the three fora below
    have erred in fact and in law by omitting to take into
G   consideration the fact that the payment of instalments towards
    the cost by the respondents was unconditional. It was further
    contended that it was not subject to fulfilment of any condition
    on the part of the appellant as a pre-requisite. Moreover, all the
    thre.e fora lost sight of the fact that under Section 8 of the Act,
    after creation of a sub-market yard by notification under Section
H
     HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKT. BOARD v.                 149
  BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.)

7(2) of the said Act, no person could be allowed to trade in           A
agricultural produce without licence and they had to apply for
the same under Section 9 of the said Act, and further to obtain
a licence under Section 10 of the said Act.

      4. It is not in dispute that the respondents duly applied for    8
 licence under Section 9 and which was granted under Section
10 permitting them to trade in agricultural produce in the sub-
market yard from their allotted shops under Section 8, which
was possible only when there was a notification under Section
7(2) to invoke notifying the sub-market yard, according to the         C
appellant, the same was notified by a Notification dated
October 31, 1980 passed by the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellant and the same is still subsisting and remained in force
after the transfer of the area to the appellant in 1986. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel appearing in support of this
appeal, all the fora failed to take any note thereof. It was further   D
pointed out that there was no question of any deficiency in
service. According to the learned counsel, the area of Adampur
Mandi was developed in the year 1992 by the Haryana Public
Health Department by providing all basic amenities like
sewerage, drainage, electricity, roads etc. in the said area. It       E
was further pointed out that the report of the Local
Commissioner would show that all the developmental works
except construction of the boundary walls have been carried out
by the appellant-Board. It was further submitted that the
sanctioning of the business licence under Section 10 of the said       F
Act pre-supposes that the State Government notified the said
area as a market area. It is further contended that the
respondents are using the plots allotted to them without paying
the instalments as ought to have been done by them.
                                                                       G
     5. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr. N.S. Dalal, learned
counsel for the respondents, that no developed infrastructure
has been provided by the appellant and the first two courts
below have come to the conclusion on the basis of the facts
placed before them. Since there is a concurrent finding on such
                                                                       H
    150      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   facts, it is submitted that this appeal should be dismissed.
    Learned counsel further submitted that the Local Commissioner
    - Mr. Balhara - in the presence of both the parties carried out
    the local inspection and the report of the said Commissioner
    would show that the facts mentioned therein have been
B   approved by both the parties. It was pointed out that the Local
    Commissioner had mentioned that no infrastructure has been
    provided, there is no platform, no boundary walls and heaps
    of debris are lying there, meaning thereby the purpose for which
    the Mandi was created could not be carried out or used or even
c   started or accomplished. In the absence of basic infrastructure
    and amenities to run a grain market the purpose for which the
    shops were allotted, is totally frustrated. The report of the Local
    Commissioner was not challenged by the appellant at any point
    of time. It was further pointed out that the appellant never relied
    on the said notification before the District Forum or before the
0
    State Commission nor even before the National Commission.
    Therefore, the grounds tried to be raised by the learned counsel
    for the appellant cannot have any bearing on the matter. It is
    further contended that the District Forum as well as the State
    Commission have recorded how there could have been
E   notification by the appellant when the land itself came to the
    appellant in the year 1986. Therefore, there cannot be any
    reason to believe that the notification was issued earlier under
    the ownership of the appellant. It is further stated that no
    explanation has been given by the appellant about the conduct
F   of non-developing the area in question by them. On the
    contrary, the respondents relied on the doctrine of legitimate
    expectations to have a proper area to continue with their
    business.

G         6. The appellant-Board has contended before us that the
    respondents are not consumers but we must keep it on record
    that the Board never challenged the jurisdiction of the consumer
    forum. We would reiterate that the statutory Boards and
    Development Authorities which are allotting sites with the
H   promise of development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of
        HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKT. BOARD v.                151
     BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE. J.]

consumer forum in case of deficiency of services as has                  A
already been decided in U. T Chandigarh Administration &
Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. 1; Karnataka Industrial Areas
and Development Board v. Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 2 • This
Court in Name Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of lndia 3 referred
to its earlier decision in Lucknow Development Authority v.              B
MK. Gupta4 and duly discussed the wide connotation of the
terms "consumer'' and "service" under the consumer protection
laws and reiterated the observation of this Court in Lucknow
Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (supra) which is
provided hereunder :                                                     c
       "5. In the context of the housing construction and building
       activities carried on by a private or statutory body and
       whether such activity tantamounts to service within the
       meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Court
       observed: (LOA case, sec pp. 256-57, para 6):                     0

       " ... when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site
       or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is
       as much service as by a builder or contractor. The one is
       contractual service and the other statutory service. If the       E
       service is defective or it is not what was represented then
       it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act.. .. "

      7. Though in the present case providing of amenities is not
a condition precedent as per the terms of the allotment letters.
                                                                         F
However, the allotments were made when the plots were in the
development stage on the condition that they be used only for
auction and trading of grains, therefore, the present auction is
different from a free public auction or an auction on "as is where
is basis". In such a scenario the appellant board as service
provider is obligated to facilitate the utilization and enjoyment        G

1.    c2009) 4 sec 460.
2.    c2007) 10 sec 481.
3.    c2012i s sec 359.
4.    (1994) 1 sec 243.                                                  H
    152       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   of the plots as intended by the allottees and set out in the
    allotment letter. In Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh & Ors.
    v. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd. & Ors. 5, wherein the allottees
    refused to pay instalments towards the cost of the allotted plots,
    this Court while deciding the same held (at para 38) as under:
B
          "We make it clear that though it was not a condition
          precedent but there is a obligation on the part of the
          Administration to provide necessary facilities for full
          enjoyment of the same by allottees"

C   In the aforementioned case, the Court remitted many of the
    cases back to the High Court for limited adjudication of facts
    to determine where the basic facilities have not been provided
    and held that though the allottees were incorrect unilateral action
    of not paying the instalments yet penal interest and penalty will
D   be levied as per the facts of each case. Thus, the allottees were
    entitled to proportionate relief. In Haryana State Agricultural
    Marketing Board v. Raj Pal6, wherein the appellant was
    involved and the certain allottees refused to pay instalments
    towards the allotted plots in the new grain market at Karnal-
E   Pehowa Road at Nighdu in· the Kamal District, citing lack of
    amenities provided by the Board, the Court while dismissing
    the case of the Board referred to the following decisions in
    Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh & Ors. v. Shantikunj
    Investment (P) Ltd. and Ors. (supra) and UT Chandigarh
F   Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. (supra) as
    under:

          "13. In Municipal Corpn., Chandigarh v. Shantikunj
          Investment (P) Ltd., this Court held: (SCC p. 128, para 38)
G                 "38. . .. We make it clear that though it was not a
                  condition precedent but there is obligation on the
                  part of the Administration to provide necessary

    5.   (2006) 4 sec 109.
H 6.     (2011) 13 sec 504.
   HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKT. BOARD v.          153
BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.)

         facilities for full enjoyment of the same by the A
         al/ottees. We therefore, remit the matter to the High
         Court for a very limited purpose to see that in
         cases where facilities like kutcha road, drainage,
         CJrinking water, sewerage, street lighting have not
        been provided, then in that case, the High Court B
        may grant the allottees some proportionate relief.
         Therefore, we direct that all these cases be
        remitted to the High Court and the High Court may
        consider that in case where kutcha road, drainage,
        sewerage, drinking water facilities have been c
        provided, no relief shall be granted but in case any
        of the facilities had not been provided, then the
        High Court may examine the same and consider
        grant of proportionate relief in the matter of
        payment of penalty under Rule 12(3) and interest 0
        for delay in payment of equated installment or
        ground rent or part thereof under Rule 12(3-A)
        only. We repeat again that in case the above
        facilities had not been granted then in that case
        consider grant of proportionate relief and if the
        facilities have been provided then it will not be E
        open on the part of the allottees to deny payment
        of interest and penalty. So far as payment of
        installment is concerned, this is a part of the
        contract and therefore, the al/ottees are under
        obligation to pay the same. However, so far as the F
        question of payment of penalty and penal interest
        in concerned, that shall depend on the facts of
        each case to be examined by the High Court. The
        High Court shall examine each individual case
        and consider grant of proportionate relief. "          G

  14. Referring to the said decision, this Court in UT
  Chandigarh Admn. v. Amarjeet Singh observed as
  follows: (SCC pp. 682-83, para 46)
                                                             H
    154      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R


A             . "46. As noticed above, in Shantikunj, the auction
                was of the year 1989. The lessee had approached
                the High Court in its writ jurisdiction in the year
                1999 seeking amenities. Even in 2006 when this
                Court heard the matter, it was alleged that the
B               amenities had not been provided. It is in those
                peculiar facts that this Court obviously thought it
                fit to give some reliefs with reference to penal
                interest wherever amenities had not been
                provided at all even after 17 years. In fact, this
c               Court made it clear while remanding to the High
                Court that wherever facilities/amenities had been
                provided. before the date of the judgment (28-2-
                2006), the lessees will not be entitled to any reliefs
                and where the facilities/amenities had not been
                granted even in 2006, the High Court may
D
                consider giving some relief by proportionate
                reduction in [the] penal interest. This direction was
                apparently on the assumption that in case of
                penalty, the court can grant relief in writ
               jurisdictions. "
E
  In Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Raj Pal
  (supra), the Court upheld the principles as laid down in
  Shantikunj Case (supra) and Amarjeet Singh Case (supra)
  and held that allottees cannot postpone the payment of
F instalments on the grounds that some of the amenities were not
  provided and the Court setting aside the penal and compound
  interest levied by the Board and in consonance with the
  Allotment Rules of 1997, levied only simple interest.

G        8. In the present case, the inaction on the part of the
    appellant in providing the requisite facilities for more than a
    decade clearly establishes deficiency of services as the
    respondents were prevented from carrying out the grain
    business. However, the respondents were also incorrect in
    refusing to pay the instalments and violating the terms of the
H
    HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKT. BOARD v.                155
 BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

instalment letter. Thus, considering the surrounding                 A
circumstances wherein the appellant has been unable to
develop the area for more than two decades and the resultant
loss suffered by the respondents, we are of the opinion that in
the present situation, there is a need for proportionate relief as
the levy of penal interest and other charges on the respondents      B
will be grossly unfair.

     9. In these circumstances, we do not find that any grounds
have been made out by the appellant to interfere with the order
passed by the National Commission. We have minutely
examined the order passed by the District Forum as well as           C
the State' Commission, and we have noticed that adequate relief
has been granted even to the respondents/complainants by
awarding interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the entire
deposited amounts. Hence, we do not find any merit in the
appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall,           D
however, be no order as to costs.

D.G.                                         Appeal dismissed.