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
4 paragraphs · 396 words-APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the appellant had booked a flat with the respondent Pushpa Builders Ltd. bearing A-1, IIIrd Floor, B Block of the complex, for a consideration, which was paid in full. But when despite the payment, the possession of the flat was not being given, a complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties allowed the refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 18% from June, 1, 1992, upto the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 1,500. Not satisfied with this relief the appellant/complainant filed this First Appeal before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. There are two pleas taken in the Memo of Appeal as well as before us and they relate to grant of interest from the respective dates of deposit and not from 1.6.1992 as directed by the State Commission and secondly the appellant is also entitled to damage of Rs. 1.5 lakh for negligence, mental agony and market escalation, etc.
After hearing the parties and as per settled law by us, in case the flat is not allotted as per the terms of the agreement, then the complainant shall be entitled to refund of amount with interest @ 18% from the respective date of deposit. This view is upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161. As far as the plea for grant of damages is concerned, no material has been brought on record on the point of escalation, hence we are unable to sustain this plea as also on the ground that the interest of 18% itself shall take care of some of the pleas taken by the appellant. In view of this we are unable to grant this relief.
IN the light of above, the appeal is allowed, in part, to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 18% from the respective date of deposit till payment. The order of the State Commission is modified in above terms and the appeal is allowed in above terms. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.