LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. M M SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Counsel appearing for both sides we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the State Commission that there was delay in the delivery of possession of a house to the complainant and that the complainant is also aggrieved by reason of the existence of a sewage line in the courtyard of the premises allotted to him are perfectly justified by the materials available on record.

(2.) We are also satisfied that the State Commission has acted correctly in awarding interest to the complainant by way of compensation for the delay in the delivery of the house as well as a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience caused to him due to the existence of the sewage line in his courtyard.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Respondent (complainant) urged before us that we should enhance the compensation awarded by way of interest by allowing a higher rate of interest and also increasing the period for which interest has been allowed. We do not find any grounds for accepting this submission and decline to interfere with the award of compensation already made by the State Commission.