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
5 paragraphs · 205 wordsS.N. Variava, J.—This Appeal is against an Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 27th August 2002.
We have heard the parties.
In our view, there is no infirmity in the reasoning of the National Commission in directing that the alternate plot be given at the same price at which original plot was allotted. However, we are unable to sustain the further direction that interest be paid by Appellants at the rate of 18% per annum. As the Respondent allotte is already benefited by getting an alternate plot at the old rate, there is no loss or damage being suffered by him which would automatically require such compensation. In such cases, compensation for mental agony/harassment by awarding interest at the rate of 9% will be sufficient. Of course, if an allottee proves that he has suffered a loss or damage e.g. having to stay in rental premises and pay rent, then such loss/damage can be awarded.
In this case, there is no finding of any loss/damage. We therefore modify the Order of the National Commission by awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
With this modification, the Appeal stands disposed off with no order as to costs.