ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member—The petitioner was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 2. Undisputed facts of the case are, that the complainant had obtained three ‘Six Year National Savings Certificates’ of Rs.10,000/ each, on 18.5.96, which matured on 18.5.2002. On maturity when the amount was not paid on various grounds, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, where the matter contested by the opposite party. The complaint was allowed following terms: “Complaint is allowed with cost of Rs. 350 payable to the complainant Dr. Debi Prasad Sadhu by the OPs by 31.12.2004. The OPs are also directed to pay matured amount of Rs. 60,450 of three NSCs bearing No. 03EE050964, 03EE050965, 03EE050966, purchased on 18.5.96 from Burdwan Head Post Office together with interest at the rate stated in each NSC for period 19.5.2002 to the date of delivery of this judgment, i.e., 30.11.2004. The OPs are also directed to pay interest on Rs. 20,150 being the matured amount of other NSC No. 18EE076784 purchased from Raghunathpur Post Office Purulia and matured on 25.3.2003 but paid on 28.6.2004, at the rate stated in said NSC for delayed period of payment from 25.3.2003 to 27.6.2003. The OPs shall make aforesaid all payment, to the complainant by 31.12.2004 positively failing which rate of interest payable on entire amount, i.e., cost of Rs. 350 plus matured amount of said unpaid NSCs being Rs. 60,450 along with interest thereon for period stated hereinabove and plus the interest from 25.3.2003 to 27.6.2003 of other NSC on matured amount of which was duly paid failing which the rate of interest on aforesaid payable entire amount shall go up to 18% per annum till date of realisation of said entire amount as aforesaid. Complainant is given the liberty to put this order to execution, if occasion so arises, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.” 3. Complainant is given the liberty to put this order to execution, if occasion so arises, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.” 3. On an appeal filed by the respondent before the State Commission, the order passed by the District Forum was modified in the following terms: “The appellants would pay the respondent the entire sum of maturity payments of given four number of NSCs less already paid, with interest component of 7% per annum for the period from the date of maturity to the date of actual payment of that sum with an amount of Rs. 350 towards cost of litigation. This payment would be required to be made within 30 days from the date of this judgment and order, failing which the decretal amount above said will further attract interest @ 8% per annum for the period of default. LCR be sent down to the Forum below forthwith.” 4. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us. Basic facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained three NSCs and which matured on 18.5.02 but as per material on record, and as observed by District Forum as well as the State Commission, that the Post Office could not have made the payments, for want of proper identification for which the petitioner himself has to be blamed. It is in these circumstances that the District Forum directed the respondent to amounts alongwith interest due. Enhanced rate of interest @ 18% p.a. was payable only if the amount was not paid by 31.12.2001. On an appeal filed by respondent before the State Commission, the State Commission granted interest @ 7% p.a. for the period from date of maturity to the date of actual payment alongwith cost of Rs. 350. This whole amount alongwith interest after the maturity period was to be made within 30 days failing which the rate of interest was to work to 8°/a p.a. 5. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, whose sole ground of filing this revision is in respect of rate of interest, we find that the petitioner was not granted interest @18 per cent p.a. per se, but was payable only if amount was not paid by 31.12.1994. Since in the meantime, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission the order could not be implemented. Since in the meantime, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission the order could not be implemented. The State Commission in its order, in our view, committed no error when it directed payment of interest after the date of maturity period @ 7 per cent p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of actual payment. This has been done despite the fact that it was the petitioner who did not satisfy the requirement of proper identification at the time of maturity. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances or the case as narrated above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Commission, which has shown indulgence in favour of the petitioner despite his being deficient as narrated earlier. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this revision petition. Hence dismissed. Revision dismissed. *******