AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the A.R. of the respondent, who is son of the respondent and an advocate as well and has also filed his vakalatnama .
First of all it is seen that there is a delay of one day in filing the present appeal, which is condoned.
The learned counsel for the appellant states that appellant is ready to refund the principal amount and the matter may be admitted and heard on the interest part only. The State Commission has allowed interest @ 18% per annum which is quite excessive as these days Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission are awarding interest @ 9% per annum in refund cases.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that in the complaint interest @ 12% per annum was demanded, however, the State Commission has allowed interest @ 18% per annum. It was requested that if this Commission comes to the finding that interest @ 18% is excessive, then interest @ 12% per annum may be granted.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties.
After arguments both the parties agreed that interest @ 10% per annum would be appropriate in the present case. The proposal is agreed to by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as A.R. of the respondent. Therefore, it is ordered that order of the State Commission dated 12.07.2019 shall stand modified to the extent that principal amount shall be refunded by the appellant to the respondent alongwith interest @ 10% per annum instead of interest @ 18% per annum as awarded by the State Commission. Rest of the order of the State Commission shall remain unchanged. This order be complied with by the appellant / opposite party within a period of eight weeks.
F.A. No. 1676 of 2019 is accordingly, disposed of.