Petitioners/complainants by way of an affidavit sent by post, has challenged impugned order dated 28.2.2012, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, tate Commission in FA No.176 of 2010. This affidavit has been treated as revision petition by the Registry. 2. Brief facts are that petitioners deposited certain amounts with the respondents/O.Ps for a period of one year in 1998 which was subsequently renewed till 15.6.2000. On its maturity they wanted to get back the deposits amount, but respondent nop.1 did not pay. According to the petitioners, respondent no.1 was prepared to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the total deposit amount which stood at Rs.60,000/-. Respondent no.1 compelled the petitioners to renew 85% of the fixed deposit amount which works out to Rs.51,000/- and for the rest of the amount of Rs.9,000/-, they issued some vouchers. Respondent no.1 paid Rs.3,000/- by cash after 5 months and the voucher balance of Rs.6,000/- was kept under deposit for a period of one year. It is further alleged that respondent no.1 failed to pay the amount, but compelled the petitioners to renew the deposit amount of Rs.51,000/-. Therefore, the said deposit was renewed for another one year. With regard to the balance of amount of Rs.6,000/-, respondent no.1 paid Rs.1,000/- after 7 months period, contrary to the assurance. Further allegation against respondent no.1 is that on maturity in the year 2002, once again it compelled the petitioners to renew their deposits for one year. Accordingly, respondent no.1 issued 3 vouchers for Rs.750/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,000/-, but those amount were not paid till date. Due to compulsion, petitioners had agreed to renew their deposits and the same thing was repeated whenever they approached respondent no.1 to get their amount. The aforesaid conduct of respondent no.1 had caused mental agony, financial strain. Thus, petitioners filed complaint seeking the following reliefs namely; (a) to direct the first opposite party to refund Rs.12,000/- being the deposit amount to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from October, 2002 till the date of payment. (b) to pay a sum of Rs.750/- with interest from 15.6.2002 till its payment. (c ) to refund a sum of Rs.11,750/- to the second complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from October, 2002 till its realization. (d) to pay Rs.1,000/- with interest from 15.6.2002 till its realization and further to refund a sum of Rs.11,750/- to the third complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from October, 2012 till its payment along with Rs.1,000/- as per the voucher interest from 15.6.2002 till its realisation. (e) the complainants further claim a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency of service and further a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as cost of the complaint. 3. Respondent no.1 in its written statement took the plea that originally the deposit was made in the year 1998 and the same was renewed every year. Further, it had paid interest more than the amount deposited by the petitioners and respondent no.1 is prepared to pay only Rs.6,000/-. Since, no service has been rendered by him as such he is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. District Forum, vide order dated 28.2.2012, partly allowed and complaint and directed respondent no.1 to refund the deposits amount of Rs.12,000/- to the first complainant and also the balance amount of Rs.750/- with agreeable rate of interest from the date of maturity till its payment. It further directed respondent no1. to refund a sum of Rs.11,750/- with agreeable rate of interest to the second and third complainant respectively from the date of maturity, till its payment. It also directed respondent no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- each to the second and third complainants being the balance amount relating to the voucher with interest from 15.6.2002 till its realization. Lastly, it also directed the respondent no.1 to pay Rs.3,000/- towards expenditure and also Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation of the complainants and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of the compensation. State Commission vide impugned order, dismissed their appeal. 6. This is how this matter has reached before this Commission. 7. Petitioner no.1 has appeared in person and has argued the case. 8. Main contention of petitioner is that respondent no.1 has charged interest at the rate of 19% from the borrowers that is the petitioners, and as such he should also pay interest at the same rate. 9. State Commission in its order has observed; nly point urged before us by one of the complainant being present in person, was that the complainants are entitled to enhancement compensation since they have attended the court number of time, and their mental suffering was not construed or considered properly. As recorded by the District Forum there is no material, to award compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- or any amount under the heading cost also, since the court fee payable is minimal, and the party himself was conducting the case. In paragraph 17, there are 5 prayers and as far as first three prayers, the relieves granted are concerned, there is no dispute. As far as the 4th prayer viz. compensation is concerned, it is disputed. In the complaint, though the complainant has reiterated the history of deposit, non-payment, part payment paid, retaining the balance etc., we find no details regarding the quantum of compensation, on which basis it was claimed how the amount is quantified, in the prayer as Rs.1,50,000/- In fact, when the District Forum has ordered refund of deposit, with interest as agreed, there is no question of lump sum compensation also, as ruled by the National Commission in Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., and another Vs. P.R. Krishnan & Another, reported in I (1995) CPJ 43 (NC), which is the dictum of the Apex Court also in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, reported in 2004 CTJ 605 (Supreme Court) (CP), where it is said grant of interest will take care of compensation also. The District Forum, though conscious about this fact, has come to conclusion, that the concept of double benefit is not applicable to the case on hand, and we do not know on what basis this conclusion was reached. The deficiency alleged in this case is non-refund of the deposit, after maturity. Even after maturity, when the Forum has ordered payment of interest, as agreed originally, certainly that should take care of the compensation also, and for the deficiency in service, forgetting the other benefits given to the claims. In this case, the District Forum not only awarded interest, but also awarded compensation and also awarded litigation expenses, and also awarded cost, which are more than sufficient, not unfortunately challenged, and therefore we refrain from disturbing that findings, concluding that the complainant is not entitled to any enhancement of compensation, and hence the appeal is devoid of merits. 10. The only issue involved in this petition is as to whether State Commission was justified in not enhancing the amount of compensation. 11. The District Forum has not only awarded the interest but also has awarded the compensation as well as litigation expenses and the cost. So, under these circumstances, State Commission rightly refused to enhance the compensation. In Ghaziabad Development Authority (Supra), Honle Supreme Court has held; owever, 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. Alongwith 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. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and in view of the reasoning given by the State Commission, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 13. Revision Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 14. There shall be no order as to cost.