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 · 413 wordsTHE opposite party appeals.
THE complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit for allotment of a flat on 27.2.85 at Deivanayagam Pillai Thottam, Pondicherry. After ten years the opposite party offered to pay back the amount without any allotment of flat. THE complainant wrote a letter asking for interest for the whole period. THEre was no reply. Aggrieved by that silence he approached the District Forum for the return of the money with interest at 18% for ten years and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental agony towards delay. The case of the opposite party was that the scheme in D.P. Thottam did not fructify, that another scheme at Lawspet was contemplated and even then no flat could be allotted to the complainant. However as per the clause and conditions of the Earnest Money Deposit they are not liable to pay any interest.
The District Forum after hearing the parties, by order dated 6.10.95, directed the opposite party to return Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant with interest @.12% p.a. from August, 1988 till payment. Aggrieved by that order the opposite party has filed this present appeal.
THE only ground urged is that as per the terms and conditions of the Earnest Money Deposit they are not liable to pay any interest. This may be true. But the first thing to be observed is that the cost of living index in June; 1985 stood at 608 and the same is 1682 in June, 1995. THErefore, for giving back an amount of the same value of Rs. .1,000/- of 1985 applying the law of contract strictly, the opposite party shall have to pay : 1000 x 1682/608=2766 rupees of today. Secondly the opposite party has committed enormous deficiency in service in not reimbursing the amount in 1988 when the second scheme was also fizzled out and for that deficiency in service compensation is due. Even though compensation was prayed for, no compensation as such was granted by the District Forum which allowed interest instead. If the interest granted is not due strictly in law, it may be in the place of compensation for the delay in payment. In fact it is the usual form of compensation which is awarded in case of delay of payment of a sum of money. We therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum and the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.