AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who states that the appellant is also present in person and on instructions from him in compliance of our order dated 10.08.2023, he confines his claim only with regard to refund and abandons his claim with regard to the possession of the flat.
In the wake of this statement made, we had also called upon learned counsel for the respondent to seek instructions and the respondent also has conceded to the payment of refund. The only issue remains with regard to the amount of interest that has been awarded by the State Commission. We find from the directions given that the refund amount has been allowed along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization.
Having considered the submissions at the bar and keeping in view the interest awarded from time to time in such matters even by the Apex Court, learned counsel for the respondent suggests that the rate of interest should be at least at par which is being awarded by the Real Estate Regulation Authority i.e. 10.5%. However, we find that in the interest of justice and keeping in view the litigation which has ensued between the parties, the rate of interest should be @ 12% per annum. Accordingly, we modify the order of the State Commission only to the effect that the entire deposited amount as directed to be refunded shall be paid over to the appellant within six weeks along with 12% interest from the dates of respective deposits till its realization. The parties shall bear their own costs. The cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5500/- is also set aside. The interim order dated 30.04.2013, stands discharged.
The impugned order dated 21.11.2012, is modified only to the extent indicated above, keeping in view the aforesaid conceded position before this Commission.
Both the appeals stand disposed of in terms of thereof.