Delve into a landmark legal case that sets a precedent for consumer rights and interest rates. The court’s meticulous legal analysis has far-reaching implications for similar cases in the future. Stay tuned for a detailed breakdown of this pivotal judgment.
Facts
- The NCDRC held that the appellant was a consumer as per the 1986 Act amendment in 2003.
- The dispute arose in 1991 when the respondent raised demands for two apartments.
- Possession was not given, and the appellant found out in January 1999 that both apartments had been transferred to third parties.
- The appellant made inquiries and discovered the cancellation of the allotment by the respondent in 1995.
- The appellant approached the NCDRC for relief, seeking possession of the flats and damages.
- The complaint was disposed of directing the respondents to refund the amount with interest.
- Both parties were found at fault by the NCDRC.
- The respondent contested on technical grounds, claiming the appellant was not a consumer.
- NCDRC directed respondents to refund Rs.4,95,000 to appellant
- Refund to be made with interest of 9% per annum from 01.1995
- Interest to be calculated till date of refund/compliance
Also Read: Balancing Private Grievances and Public Interests
Arguments
- The appellant has requested the respondent to produce the sale deeds of the two flats in question transferred to third parties.
- The appellant insists that the amount from the sale of the flats should be paid to them as part of their claims.
- The appellant accuses the respondent of unjustly enriching themselves through their actions.
Also Read: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Based on Insufficient Allegations
Analysis
- The NCDRC’s findings regarding the conduct of both parties were agreed with by the Court.
- In the interest of both parties and considering the nature of the agreement and their conduct, the NCDRC’s order was deemed in need of modification.
- The interest rate awarded was a mere 9%.
- The informed non-payment of the awarded amount is noted.
- There is a lack of justification provided for the non-tendering of the awarded amount to the appellant.
- In the event of default under the agreement, appellant’s liability for interest on the defaulted amount can reach up to 18%.
- 18% interest should be awarded on the refund amount in the present case.
Also Read: Reversal of Acquittal: High Court Convicts Accused in Murder Case
Decision
- Partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the NCDRC
- Directed the respondent to refund Rs.4,95,000 along with 18% interest per annum from 01.1995 till the payment date
- Directed the payment to be made within four weeks from the date of the order
- No order as to costs
- Disposed of any pending applications
Case Title: M/S. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO. Vs. M/S UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD. (2022 INSC 1063)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004913-004913 / 2015
