ORDER : Civil Appeal No. 2015 of 2008 1. Since the facts involved in the cases connected with this appeal are similar, for the sake of brevity, we will only notice the facts in Civil Appeal No. 2015 of 2008 for the purpose of disposal of these matters. 2. This appeal is directed against the final order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, "the National Commission") in Revision Petition No. 14 of 2006, dated 04.10.2007, whereby and whereunder the National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition upholding the liability of the appellants-herein for payment of interest on the amount to be refunded by the appellant and for the payment of compensation. 3. Briefly stated the facts in the present appeal are: Punjab Urban Planning Development (for short "the PUDA") for setting up residential Urban State, Kapurthala for the allotment of plots. PUDA had issued a brochure while inviting applications for allotment of plots, one of the conditions mentioned in the brochure was regarding the refund of the earnest money as follows : "After the draw of lots, the unsuccessful applicants shall be refunded the earnest money within 180 days from the closing date of scheme. However, 10 percent interest shall be allowed from 181st day onwards in case refund is made after 180 days. In case applicant asks for refund before the draw of lots, refund shall be allowed after deducting token amount of Rs. 500/-" 4. Most of the applicant allottees were delivered possession of the plots prior to 12.06.2002 and few were delivered possession after 12.06.2002. 5. The Respondent-herein approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (for short, "the District Forum") with certain grievances regarding deficiencies in the development work by PUDA and claim for compensation. The issue before the District Forum arose as to whether the respondents-herein could start the construction and complete the same without basic amenities having been provided by the PUDA and whether the PUDA was entitled to charge any interest prior to providing of basic amenities. 6. The District Forum held that the PUDA was not entitled to charge any interest on the instalments, for price of the plots, which were due prior to 12.06.2002 and the amount of interest which might have been charged on installments should also be refunded with 18 percent interest from the date of deposit till 12.06.2002. 6. The District Forum held that the PUDA was not entitled to charge any interest on the instalments, for price of the plots, which were due prior to 12.06.2002 and the amount of interest which might have been charged on installments should also be refunded with 18 percent interest from the date of deposit till 12.06.2002. Further, it was held that the respondents-herein will be entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of escalation of prices. The said amount was also ordered to be paid with 18 percent interest. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the appellant carried the matter in appeal to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 144 of 2005. 8. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum, by its order dated, 10.10.2005, however it modified the rate of interest of 18 percent on the amount to be refunded to a rate of interest of 10 percent. Further, the State Commission also held that the respondent-herein will be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of escalation of prices but without any interest. However, if the amount is not paid within a period of two months of the receipt of copy of the order, then the same shall carry interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum. 9. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the State Commission, the appellants-herein carried the matter in Revision Petition to the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 14 of 2006, whereby and where under, the National Commission upheld the order passed by the State Commission. 10. Aggrieved by the order passed by the National Commission, the appellant is before us in this appeal. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 12. After going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the National Commission and the Courts below, we are of the considered opinion that the Courts below has not done any error whatsoever while passing the impugned order. The appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed and, is dismissed accordingly. Rest of The Matters : 13. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2015 of 2008, the connected appeals and Special Leave Petitions are also disposed of in the same terms, observations, conditions and directions contained therein.