Consumer Appeals Dismissed: National Commission Upholds State's Order on Refund Interest Rate

In a recent development, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the order of the State Commission regarding the refund interest rate in two consumer appeals. The appellants had challenged the interest rate set by the State Commission, seeking an increase from 12% to 24% per annum compounded annually. However, the National Commission dismissed the appeals, asserting that the State Commission's decision was reasonable and legally sound. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, highlighting the facts, arguments, and the commission's ruling.

Background of the Case:

The appeals, First Appeal No. 1035 of 2018 and First Appeal No. 1047 of 2018, were filed with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in New Delhi. These appeals contested the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in Complaint Case No. 994 of 2017 and Complaint Case No. 993 of 2017, respectively.

II. Parties Involved:

Appellants:

• First Appeal No. 1035 of 2018: Sukhdev Singh, son of Shri Amrik Singh, resident of Modern Jewellers, Saraffa Bazar, Karnal, Haryana.
• First Appeal No. 1047 of 2018: Devender Kaur, wife of Shri Sukhdev Singh, resident of Modern Jewellers Saraffa Bazar, Karnal, Haryana.

Respondent:

• TDI Infratech Ltd., located at 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi 110001.

Order of the State Commission:

The State Commission's order, against which the appeals were filed, directed TDI Infratech Ltd. to refund the entire deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until realization. The refund was to be made if the respondent failed to deliver possession of the plot to the complainants.

Arguments Presented in the Appeals:

The sole contention put forth by the appellants during the hearing at the National Commission was their demand for an increased interest rate of 24% per annum compounded annually. They argued that the State Commission's interest rate was inadequate given the circumstances.

Respondent's Position:

The respondent, TDI Infratech Ltd., expressed their full acceptance of the State Commission's order. They affirmed their commitment to comply with the order in its entirety. The respondent believed that the interest rate set by the State Commission at 12% per annum was fair and reasonable, considering the facts of the case.

National Commission's Ruling:

After careful consideration of the arguments and facts presented by both parties, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission agreed with the respondent's position. The commission found the interest rate of 12% per annum set by the State Commission to be fair and reasonable. The appellants failed to provide sufficient grounds to warrant an increase beyond 12%. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed by the National Commission.

Conclusion:

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision to uphold the State Commission's order on the refund interest rate in the two appeals signifies the importance of adhering to legal and reasonable standards in consumer disputes. The commission found no basis to increase the interest rate from the State Commission's determined 12% per annum. This ruling emphasizes the need for parties involved in consumer complaints to present compelling evidence and arguments to justify any deviation from existing orders or decisions.

The appellants in the case, Sukhdev Singh and Devender Kaur, had challenged the interest rate set by the State Commission and sought an increase to 24% per annum compounded annually. However, their arguments did not convince the National Commission, which found the State Commission's decision to be fair and reasonable.

TDI Infratech Ltd., the respondent, fully accepted the order of the State Commission and expressed their willingness to comply with it. They believed that the interest rate of 12% per annum was appropriate in this context, and the appellants' demand for a higher rate was unwarranted.

In its ruling, the National Commission concluded that the interest rate awarded by the State Commission was reasonable. It highlighted that the appellants failed to provide sufficient grounds to justify an increase beyond the established rate. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the original order.

This case serves as a reminder that consumer disputes should be approached with careful consideration of the facts and legal provisions. It is crucial for both parties involved to present strong evidence and arguments to support their positions. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining fairness and reasonableness in resolving consumer complaints.

In conclusion, the National Commission's ruling confirms the validity of the State Commission's order regarding the refund interest rate. The dismissal of the appeals highlights the need for parties to adhere to established guidelines and provide substantial justifications when seeking modifications or deviations. This decision contributes to the overall goal of ensuring consumer protection and fair resolution of disputes.

Note: Please note that the information provided in this article about the complaint filed in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is for educational purposes only. The complaint number for reference is FIRST APPEAL NO. 1047 OF 2018 and FIRST APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2018

By subscribing to AryaBot, you can receive updates on all RERA-approved projects in your desired area directly on your WhatsApp. AryaBot offers a free list of new RERA-approved real estate developments, so you can stay up-to-date on the latest developments in the area.

Know more about AryaBot at ReunionHQ

Explore the list of new RERA approved projects in Maharashtra.