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
3 paragraphs · 364 wordsHEARD Mr. Alok Kumar Srivastava learned Counsel for the appellant whereas respondent is represented by Mr. Anil Kumar husband of the complainant.
THE order in question was criticized on the ground that the rate of interest awarded by the District Consumer Forum is quite excessive whereas it should be 09% p. a. as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Kausnuma Begum v. New India Insurance Company. Admittedly in the instant case the complainant was allotted plot No. 99 L1g on 12. 2. 1999. She deposited Rs. 25, 000 on 30. 1. 99. Thereafter allotment was done and the remaining amount of Rs. 47,600 was too deposited by the complainant. In all the total cost of the plot i. e. Rs. 72. 600 was deposited. The complainant also deposited Rs. 8,712 towards free hold charges and Rs. 320 towards miscellaneous charges. In spite of that no effort was made by the appellant for execution of the sale deed or handing over the possession. Then the complainant filed the complaint and the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar after appraisal of the record and hearing the parties issued a direction to the appellant either to refund the entire sum along with interest @ 10% p. a. or allot an alternative plot. Neither directions were carried out. Instead this appeal was preferred alleging that the interest @ 10% p. a. is on higher side and it was arbitrary.
We have perused the record available on the file. The complainant had deposited the entire cost of the plot including free hold charges and miscellaneous expenses. The appellant was expected to have executed the sale deed but it was not done. It is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The rate of interest i. e. 10% p. a. awarded by the District Consumer Forum is rather on lower side but since no cross appeal is there we do not proceed on this issue. The order passed by the District Consumer Forum is justified and need no interference. The appeal has no substance and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
