ORDER : Leave granted. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-complainant Ms. K.A. Nagamani against the order dated 4th August, 2011, read with execution order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’) whereby the National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition as non-maintainable, affirmed the order passed by the Consumer Fora and imposed the cost of Rs. 10,000/- on her on the ground that she had wasted the time of the National Commission. 3. The main grievance of the complainant is that the grant of 12% p.a. interest on refund amount does not amount to a just compensation and that she is entitled for a higher interest @ 27% per annum on the amount returned by the respondent and a further compensation in lieu of deficiency in service. 4. On 20th January, 2012, a notice was issued to the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Housing Board’) as to why the order passed by the three Consumer Forums for payment of interest to the appellant at the rate of 12% per annum may not be set aside and a direction be issued for payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum and compensation in lieu of the deficiency in service. The respondent on appearance opposed the prayer and justified the order passed by the three Consumer Forums. 5. The case of the complainant is that pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspaper and notification dated 11th April, 1991, she applied before the Housing Board for allotment of HIG-B flat under Self Financing Housing Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “SF Scheme” for short) at Kengeri, Bangalore. In response to the said application, the respondent vide their letter dated 25.3.1992 allotted flat No. 116, Type ‘B’, First Floor at Kengeri under SFS scheme. Subsequently, by ‘Provisional Intimation of Allotment’ letter dated 23.4.1992 the respondent informed her of the provisional cost of the flat and the chart showing the dates on which instalments were to be paid, as shown below: Sl. No Stages of Payment Amount 1. Initial registration fee being 0.5% cost of the flat. Rs. 15,750/- 2. Ist instalment by 04/6/1992 Rs. 94,500/- 3. IInd instalment by 04/9/1992 Rs. 78,750/- 4. IIIrd instalment by 04/12/1992 Rs. 78,750/- 5. IVth instalment on completion of the building Rs. 47,250/- Total Rs. No Stages of Payment Amount 1. Initial registration fee being 0.5% cost of the flat. Rs. 15,750/- 2. Ist instalment by 04/6/1992 Rs. 94,500/- 3. IInd instalment by 04/9/1992 Rs. 78,750/- 4. IIIrd instalment by 04/12/1992 Rs. 78,750/- 5. IVth instalment on completion of the building Rs. 47,250/- Total Rs. 3,15,000/- 6. For payment of such instalments, the complainant had to avail a loan of Rs. 2,56,725/- from her employer (the Indian Airlines). A total sum of Rs. 2,67,750/- was paid by her on the following dates: Sl. No. Stages of payment Date Amount (Rs.) 1. Initial Registration fee on 12.5.1991 being 05% cost of the flat 12/05/1991 15,750/- 2. 1st instalment being 30% of the flat 02/06/1992 94,500/- 3. 11nd instalment being 15% cost of the flat 02/09/1992 78,750/- 4. 111rd instalment being 15% cost of the flat 04/12/1992 78,750/- Total 2,67,750/- 7. The grievance of the complainant is that though she was allotted flat No.116 after two and a half years of receipt of payment of instalments, the said flat was not handed over to her. On the contrary, by letter dated 24.6.1995, she was informed that her allotment was changed and that she had been allotted flat No. 64 HIG-B5 in Block No. 61 in lieu of the previous allotment with different terms and conditions as mentioned in the said letter. It is stated that the cost of the subsequent flat is much higher (i.e. Rs. 5,90,000/-) than the cost of the earlier flat (i.e. Rs. 3,15,000/-). That means further sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- is to be paid by the complainant. 8. The complainant, thereafter, wrote different letters informing the respondent that she was not in a position to pay the higher amount and requested the allotment of the flat which was earlier allotted to her. The respondent by letter dated 31.1.1996 informed that the flat No. 116, Type-B allotted to her could not be constructed due to the dispute raised by the land owners and the matter was pending before the Court. The respondent while acknowledging the payment of Rs. 2,67,750/- made by the complainant, informed that taking into account the original cost of Rs. 3,15,000/-, a further cost of Rs. 47,250/- was due from her. 9. Further grievance of the complainant is that though she made different representations from her Delhi address, no reply was received by her. The respondent while acknowledging the payment of Rs. 2,67,750/- made by the complainant, informed that taking into account the original cost of Rs. 3,15,000/-, a further cost of Rs. 47,250/- was due from her. 9. Further grievance of the complainant is that though she made different representations from her Delhi address, no reply was received by her. Subsequently she came to know that letters were forwarded at her Delhi address with address written in ‘Kannada’. For the said reason many of the letters could not be served on her as the Postal peon at Delhi had no knowledge of ‘Kannada’. As it was not possible for her to pay the additional sum of Rs. 3,22,250/- demanded by the respondent, which was beyond her earning capacity and exceeds the limit of loan to which she was entitled from her organisation, the complainant requested the respondent to return the amount as they had failed to keep their promise in spite of the receipt of the full amount as per the payment structure. She informed the respondent that as per column No. 7 of the terms and conditions, the possession of the flat was to be handed over after the payment of all the four instalments. 10. After much persuasion and fourteen years after taking of the loan from the employer, the respondent refunded the amount after deducting a sum of Rs. 3,937/-. In this background, the complainant by her representation dated 29.12.2005 requested the respondent to refund the balance amount of Rs. 3,937/- with interest at the rate of 27% per annum for the deposit amount of Rs. 2,67,750/- from the dates mentioned against each figure; i.e. from the date of payment of each respective instalment. She also claimed compensation due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the respondent. 11. In spite of the repeated requests, as the claim amount was not paid by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Consumer Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore with the following prayer: (a) to refund Rs. 3,937/- towards the deposit lying with the Opposite Party and to pay the interest at the rate of 27% p.a. from the dates mentioned against each figure for the deposit amount of Rs. 3,937/- towards the deposit lying with the Opposite Party and to pay the interest at the rate of 27% p.a. from the dates mentioned against each figure for the deposit amount of Rs. 2,67,750/-; (b) to pay the cost of this proceedings; (c) any other order or directions as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Forum in the interest of justice and equity. 12. The District Forum by its order dated 21st December, 2006 held that the complainant had proved the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent and allowed the petition, directing the respondent to pay an interest of 12% per annum on Rs. 2,67,750/- from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realisation with further direction to refund an amount of Rs. 3937/- to the complainant. 13. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed an Appeal No. 166/2007 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (to be referred to as the “State Commission” for short). The complainant specifically pleaded that she suffered losses, injury, harassment, mental agony and permanent loss of opportunity to have her own flat as follows:- I. Loss of compound interest on the deposit of Rs. 2,67,750/-. II. Loss of opportunity forever for taking housing loan from her employer since housing loan is given only once in whole service period. III. Loss of opportunity forever for taking housing loan from Finance Institute because the Appellant has only about 7 years to retire, does not have property that can be accepted by Financial Institutes as collateral security for the loan and also does not have any friend who can stand as surety for the loan. IV. Cost incurred in travelling from Delhi to Bangalore to pursue the allotment of the flat in SFS scheme about 10 times. V. Cost incurred in litigation. 14. The State Commission on 6th February, 2007 by its short order dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the said order, the complainant moved the National Commission, but the National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition with costs. 15. The complainant appeared-in-person and claimed higher interest @ 27% and compensation in lieu of deficiency in service. According to her, despite the concurrent finding of deficiency in service of the respondent, the compensation given is not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in different cases. 15. The complainant appeared-in-person and claimed higher interest @ 27% and compensation in lieu of deficiency in service. According to her, despite the concurrent finding of deficiency in service of the respondent, the compensation given is not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in different cases. Further according to her, she suffered a loss as she deposited the money in the hope to get the flat but she has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of the flat, therefore, the compensation in such cases should necessarily have been higher with higher interest, as held by this Court in different cases. 16. According to learned counsel for the respondent, by notification dated 11h April, 1991, it was made clear by Housing Board that they reserved the right to design and change specification. The original allotment of flat No. 116, Type-B under S.F Scheme at Kengeri, Satellite Town, Bangalore was provisional. It is accepted that the complainant had deposited the instalments on time to the extent of Rs. 2,67,750/- out of total cost of Rs. 3,15,000/- but according to the counsel for the respondent the said flat could not be constructed because of pending litigation in certain original suits. In this background, the complainant was informed about the allotment of flat No. 64 for Rs. 5,90,000/- as provisional cost. By subsequent letter dated 15.2.1996, she was informed that the SF scheme was converted into CH scheme. 17. It is further contended that vide letter dated 19.3.2005, the complainant wanted to withdraw from the allotment and sought a refund of the amount paid with interest at the rate of 27%. The Karnataka Housing Board, vide cheque dated 21.10.2005 refunded a sum of Rs. 2,68,813/-, after deducting 25% of the registration fee i.e. 3,937.50. The amount was debited from the account of Karnataka Housing Board on 8.11.2005. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. 18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19. It is not in dispute that the complainant was allotted Flat No. 116, Type-B First Floor at Kengeri under the Self Finance Scheme. She was informed by the respondent that the cost of the flat was Rs. 3,15,000/- and was asked to pay the cost along with the registration fee in instalments. 19. It is not in dispute that the complainant was allotted Flat No. 116, Type-B First Floor at Kengeri under the Self Finance Scheme. She was informed by the respondent that the cost of the flat was Rs. 3,15,000/- and was asked to pay the cost along with the registration fee in instalments. The complainant paid the instalment on time but the respondent neither delivered the possession of the flat to her nor offered any other flat under the same scheme. The facts as narrated and noticed above were not disputed by the respondent before the District Forum, which after appreciating the evidence, came to a definite opinion that ‘the complainant had proved the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent’. In this background, the District Forum allowed the petition and directed the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs. 2,67,750/- to the complainant from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realisation with a further direction to refund the amount of Rs. 3,937/- to the complainant. 20. The aforesaid finding of the District Forum relating to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent was affirmed by the State Commission as well as by the National Commission. 21. Before the State Commission, the complainant took the specific plea of loss of compound interest on the deposit of Rs. 2,67,750/-; loss of opportunity forever from availing a housing loan, from her employer since it is given only once in the whole service period and cost incurred in travelling from Delhi to Bangalore in pursuing the allotment of the flat apart from the cost of litigation. In spite of the finding that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, all the Consumer Forums allowed only 12% interest and no amount was allowed towards compensation. 22. The National Commission has been vested with jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as follows: “21. In spite of the finding that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, all the Consumer Forums allowed only 12% interest and no amount was allowed towards compensation. 22. The National Commission has been vested with jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as follows: “21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.-Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction- (a) to entertain- (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds [rupees one crore]; and (ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the National Commission can call for the records and pass appropriate orders where it appears that the State Commission has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested. 23. In the present case, the complainant succeeded in showing the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent which was also accepted by the State Commission. In spite of such finding, no separate compensation was allowed in favour of the complainant. Thereby though the State Commission failed to exercise its jurisdiction and proceeded with material irregularity, the National Commission erred in holding that the petition was not maintainable and wrongly imposed cost on the complainant. 24. Similar case fell for compensation before this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 . In the said case, the question for consideration before this Court was whether grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum by the Consumer Forums in all cases under consideration was justifiable or not. While dealing with the matter the Court held: “8. However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. While dealing with the matter the Court held: “8. However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of 18% per annum. As seen above, what is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, however, a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury, both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause.” In the said case the Court further proceeded and gave certain illustrations as to what type of cases where in a higher interest amount can be paid apart from the compensation and observed as follows:- “9. That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher. Further if the construction is not of good quality or not complete, the compensation would be the cost of putting it in good shape or completing it along with some compensation for harassment. Similarly, if at the time of giving possession a higher price or other amounts are collected unjustifiably and without there being any provision for the same the direction would be to refund it with a reasonable rate of interest. If possession is refused or not given because the consumer has refused to pay the amount, then on the finding that the demand was unjustified the consumer can be compensated for harassment and a direction to deliver possession can be given. If a party who has paid the amount is told by the authority that they are not in a position to ascertain whether he has paid the amount and that party is made to run from pillar to post in order to show that he has paid the amount, there would be deficiency of service for which compensation for harassment must be awarded depending on the extent of harassment. Similarly, if after delivery of possession, the sale deeds or title deeds are not executed without any justifiable reasons, the compensation would depend on the amount of harassment suffered. We clarify that the above are mere examples. They are not exhaustive. The above shows that compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer.” (Emphasis supplied) 25. The case of the complainant is covered by one of the examples cited by this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh as quoted above. In this case also the amount was simply returned and the complainant is suffering a loss inasmuch as she had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat but she is being deprived of that flat and thereby deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat. In this case also the amount was simply returned and the complainant is suffering a loss inasmuch as she had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat but she is being deprived of that flat and thereby deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat. Therefore the compensation in this case would necessarily have to be higher, as per the decision of this Court. 26. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeals and pass the following order:- (i) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant-complainant interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 2,67,750/- from date of its respective deposit till the date of realisation with further direction to refund the amount of Rs. 3,937/- to her, as directed by the Consumer Forum. (ii) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant-complainant further sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service on their part. (iii) The respondent is also directed to pay the appellant-complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of the litigation incurred by her. The aforesaid amount be paid in favour of the appellant-complainant on an early date but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The orders passed by the State Commission and the National Commission are set aside and the order passed by the District Forum stands modified to the extent above. Appeals allowed.