ORDER : Delay condoned. 2. The respondent was allotted dwelling unit No.231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 6.4.1989. On the same day, the respondent entered into hire purchase agreement with the petitioner and paid all the dues. 3. After eight months, the petitioner issued notice-cum-demand letter dated 12.1.2009 to the respondent and called upon her to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs. 52,172/-. On protest by the respondent, the petitioner reduced the amount from Rs. 52,172/- to Rs. 41,131/-, in the first instance, then to Rs. 36,819/- and finally to Rs. 21,109/-. 4. After getting details of the calculation made by the petitioner, the respondent filed Complaint Case No.61/2011 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and pleaded that the petitioner may be directed to refund the excess amount paid by her along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 5. The petitioner contested the complaint and pleaded that the respondent is liable to pay the amount specified in the demand notice because she had not paid the instalments of price in accordance with the conditions of allotment. 6. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh allowed the complaint vide order dated 27.6.2011 and the petitioner was directed to calculate the liquidated damages and refund the excess amount to the complainant-respondent within 30 days. The District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent for mental agony and harassment besides cost of Rs. 2,500/-. 7. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh by recording the following observations: "10. The manner in which the account of complainant and may be of many other allottees and tenants are maintained also leaves much to be desired. The complainant was informed vide a notice Annexure-2 dated 12.1.2009 that a sum of Rs. 52172/- was due from him. When he questioned the accuracy of the amount, another letter Annexure -3 dated 15.9.2009 was issued reducing the said amount of Rs. 41131/-. This is certain that during that period of 8 months complainant had not deposited any such amount. Further the complainant was not satisfied with the calculations and he again sent another letter upon which the amount was brought down to 36819/- as per Annexure -4 dated 18.5.2010. 41131/-. This is certain that during that period of 8 months complainant had not deposited any such amount. Further the complainant was not satisfied with the calculations and he again sent another letter upon which the amount was brought down to 36819/- as per Annexure -4 dated 18.5.2010. Dissatisfied the complainant again represented and the officials of the OP/appellant were obliged to further bring down the amount to Rs. 21019/- vide Annexure-5 dated 13.9.2010. Needless to mention that during this period of about one year and 8 months no such amount of 30,000/- had been deposited by the complainant which could reduce the figure from 52172/- (as on 12.1.2009) to Rs. 21019/- (as on 13.9.2010). It appears that the allottees are at the mercy of such employees of the OP/appellant who inflate figures according to their whims and can reduce the same if challenged. Even after the present complaint was filed against the OP plunging it into litigation, it appears no action would have been taken against the said employees who are playing with the figures and are apparently deficient in rendering service, where they cannot even calculate the amount due from the allottees and can give inflated figures to scare the allottees and force them to deposit extra amount with the OP/appellant. The inefficiency of the OP/appellant in calculating the amount due from the allottee is in itself a deficiency in service. 11. It is not only that, such things happen before the complainant come to Consumer Fora but even after the present case was decided a similar trick has been played by the OP/appellant. As per the accounts statement provided by the OP, referred to above, the complainant had already deposited a sum of Rs. 13478.32/- in excess of amount due from him as ground rent. As regards the EMIs' the other statement shows that a sum of Rs. 34496.65/- was due from complainant towards instalments, however, during the pendency of appeal the OP/appellant submitted an application dated 30.9.2011 in which the ground rent paid in excess was mentioned to be 6533/- When questioned as to how this amount came down from Rs. 13478/- to Rs. 6533/- the learned Counsel for the appellant was at a loss to explain. His contention was that the additional amount was adjusted towards the payment of instalments. If that be so then why this amount of Rs. 13478/- to Rs. 6533/- the learned Counsel for the appellant was at a loss to explain. His contention was that the additional amount was adjusted towards the payment of instalments. If that be so then why this amount of Rs. 6533/- was also not adjusted towards the arrears due from the complainant could not be answered by the learned Counsel. It is therefore, clear that the OP is not maintaining the accounts of the allottees properly and this by itself constitutes deficiency in service. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any draw back in the order passed by the learned District Forum which in our opinion is perfectly legal and valid. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-." The National Commission did not find any error in the order of the State Commission and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. 8. Undeterred by adverse orders passed by three Consumer Forums, the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 9. We have heard Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record. In our considered view, this petition falls in the category of frivolous cases, number of which has considerably increased in last few years and it is apposite that such matters are dismissed at the threshold with exemplary cost so that valuable time of the Courts and quasi-judicial forums is not wasted by unscrupulous litigants. 10. The petitioner has not controverted the respondent's assertion that she had paid the total price in terms of the hire purchase agreement and nothing was due from her. It has also not controverted the fact that the demand created vide letter dated 12.1.2009 was thrice reduced and no explanation could be offered as to why unwarranted demand was raised against the respondent. Therefore, the concurrent finding recorded by the three consumer forums that the respondent had been harassed by the officers of the petitioner cannot be faulted and there is no valid ground or justification to interfere with the orders passed by the three consumer forums. 11. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. For filing a frivolous petition, the petitioner is saddled with cost of Rs. 11. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. For filing a frivolous petition, the petitioner is saddled with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only), which shall be paid to the respondent in addition to the amount payable to her in terms of the direction given by the District Forum. The petitioner is directed to do the needful within a period of one month from today. Petition dismissed.