As per the case facts, the appellants questioned a judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that declined to interfere with a State Commission's order. The case originated from ... complaints filed by the respondent alleging deficiency of service by the appellants for failing to deliver possession of three booked flats, despite a significant payment. The District Forum initially dismissed the complaints, stating the respondent was not a "consumer" for booking multiple flats for commercial purposes. The question arose whether the National and State Commissions were correct in their findings regarding the deficiency of service and the nature of the transaction. Finally, the Supreme Court disapproved the impugned orders by the State and National Commissions regarding the awarding of compound interest in such matters. However, considering the peculiar circumstances, the respondent was allowed to retain the amount already received, but the appellants