HOYSALA BUILDING DEVELOPMENT CO LTD Vs. LAKSHMI VAIDYANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing both sides, we are of opinion that the findings recorded by the State Commission do not call for any interference by us as they are fully supported by the evidence adduced in the case. The only modification which in our opinion, is called for in the Order passed by the State Commission, is in respect of the rate of interest allowed to the complainant. We are of opinion that the rate of 30 per cent per annum allowed by the State Commission is excessive and that it should be reduced to a reasonable rate which we consider should t)e 18 per cent. Hence, we direct that the order passed by the State Commission shall stand modified by reducing the rate of interest allowed to the Complainant on the amount of compensation awarded to him from 30 per cent to 18 per cent per annum, in all other respects the order of the State Commission is confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed subject to the modification indicated above.

(2.) IT is brought to our notice that despite the specific direction given by this Commission in the conditional order of stay passed by us that the appellant should deposit 50% of the amount payable under the order of the State Commission for payment to the Respondent herein, the appellant has not complied with the said direction till now. We consider that the conduct of the appellant in having enjoyed the benefit of stay without complying with the condition on which the stay was granted, was highly objectionable. We direct that the amount payable to the respondent as calculated in accordance with this order shall be paid to the respondent pre-emptorily within a period not exceeding six weeks from today failing which the State Commission shall take immediate steps by way of penal action against the Appellant herein for enforcement of the order under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs.