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 · 287 wordsON a complaint of Sh. R.C. Arora, who wanted immediate refund of Rs. 21,000/- deposited by him with the Premier Automobiles Ltd. for a UNO car, the District Forum-II ordered on 26.2.1996 the refund of Rs. 21,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of booking i.e. 15.2.1992 till 30.6.1998 and costs Rs. 2,200/-. The complainant was not satisfied with this relief and has come forward with the present appeal.
THE grievance of the complainant is that interest from 15.2.1996 to 25.8.1998 when the cheque payable at Mumbai was actually realised should have been 24%. Besides a deduction of Rs. 96/- as collection charges by the Bank should also be reimbursed to him by the dealer with whom the motor car was booked. He has also claimed costs of Rs. 7096/- alleging that the sum of Rs. 2200/- awarded by the District Forum was too meagre. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Santosh Kanhayalal Jain & Anr., 1997 (2) CON.LT 355, wherein it was observed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that if priority list was not disturbed to the detriment of the claimant and there was no intentional or deliberate delay in affecting delivery of the motor car, the complainant was entitled to only 9% interest. Any authority to the contrary has not been brought to our notice. Thus we hold that the interest awarded was sufficient. Though the dealer was expected to issue a crossed Bank Draft and not a cheque yet in view of the liberal amount of interest the appellant has received, no modification is called for. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
