(1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) HEARD counsel for the parties. We see considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for LIC that since the policy has yet to mature at a future date, the grant of interest at 12% p.a. on the modified amount is unsustainable. Even otherwise that amount was not payable to the policy-holder, but merely an entry in regard thereto had to be made in the policies concerned so that, at the time of maturity of the policy, these dues would be taken into consideration in ascertaining the total amount to which the policy-holder would be entitled. We see considerable force in this submission and find it difficult to sustain the direction in regard to grant of interest. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the stipulation in regard to grant of interest at 12% p.a. on the modified amount. (3) MR Bobde, the learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the respondent had to incur cost for the failure of the appellant in effecting the necessary entries in regard to payment of bonus, etc., for the policies in question. He submitted that even after the District Forum had given a direction in that behalf and the appeal carried by LIC to the State Commission was dismissed, LIC did not rest and carried the matter to the National Commission and thus made the policy-holder contest the litigation. Mr Salve submits that they had made the corrections in the policy after the State Commission dismissed their appeal. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the policy-holder had to knock at the doors of the fora under the Consumer Protection Act and only after a direction was given by the District Forum and the State Commission, that a change was effected. In the circumstances, we think that the respondent is entitled to cost. The learned counsel for LIC also fairly states that the respondent should be paid the cost as may be quantified by this Court. We quantify the cost at Rs.25,000. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.