Tribunals and Commissions

A.J.KUTTY vs K.S.HOUSING BOARD

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 22 August 2003 · Citation: 2003 0 NCDRC 62

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.P.WADHWA , RAJYALAKSHMI RAO , B.K.TAIMNI J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 238 words
1.

23.9.2002 WHILE admitting the petition we passed the following order :- "Admit. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 31.1.2003. The complainant is the petitioner before us. He had applied for a flat in the year 1980 when he paid a sum of Rs.4,800/- which was 60% of the price. It was promised that the possession of the plot will be given within three years. However, in 1995, the complainant was told that the cost has been raised to Rs.8,01,801/-. On the ground of delay and escalation, the complainant demanded his money to be refunded. District Forum dismissed the complaint. The State Commission also dismissed the complaint stating that such refund is to be made with interest as agreed to in the brochure which is 6% p.a. This order was made on the basis that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered the flat as one of the grounds taken delay."

2.

For long 15 years, possession of the plot could not be given to the complainant and he had to ask perforce for refund. It could not be said that it was voluntarily act on the part of the complainant. We, therefore, allow the petition and direct that rate of interest shall be 18% p.a. and not 6% p.a. With this modification, the order of the State Commission is affirmed. Complainant is also entitled to cost which we assess at Rs.2,000/-. Cost shall be payable to the petitioner himself.