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
1 paragraphs · 218 words- NOTWITHSTANDING the persuasive arguments advanced before us by Mr. M.S. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, we are unable to discern any error of law or even of fact in the order of the State Commission. The facts on record clearly disclose that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the appellants who had undertaken to construct and provide flats to the Respondents in these two cases and notwithstanding the lapse of more than five years after 50% of the cost price had been deposited by the Complainants, even the construction of the flats has not so far been commenced by the appellant. The State Commission could have, with full justification, awarded compensation in addition to the amount of interest in favour of the complainant but it refrained from doing so and has only erred in favour of the complainant by directing the appellant herein only to refund the amount received by him from the complainant by way of price of the flat with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment of the amount. The order of the State Commission is accordingly confirmed and these two appeals are dismissed. The appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- by way of costs to the respondents in each case. Appeal dismissed.