Appellant awarded interest refund for unfair trade practices in housing scheme. Court upholds 12% interest rate.

The appellant sought a refund with interest due to unfair trade practices by the respondent in a housing scheme. The Commission found a deficiency of services on the respondent's part and directed them to pay 12% per annum interest on the instalments. The Supreme Court upheld the interest rate, emphasizing the equitable nature of interest payments as a normal accretion on capital. The Court ordered the respondent to pay interest on the principal amount and the interest accrued within two months, preventing unjust enrichment and providing clarity on interest calculations in such cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.
2. Deficiency of services by the respondent in relation to the housing scheme.
3. Determination of the appropriate rate of interest to be paid to the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Commission. The appellant applied for a flat under the "Indira Puram Housing Scheme" in 1994, paid the specified instalments, and opted for a different flat later. However, after several years of no communication from the respondent, the appellant sought a refund with interest due to unfair trade practices. The respondent defended by stating that full payment was not made, and the possession was not handed over. The Commission found a deficiency of services on the respondent's part due to unfulfilled promises and lack of effort in demanding the remaining amount or providing possession of the flat.

2. The Commission directed the respondent to pay 12% per annum interest on the instalments from payment dates till the refund date. The appellant appealed for a higher interest rate citing precedents. The Supreme Court held that the interest rate depends on the case's circumstances and facts. While agreeing with the 12% interest rate, the Court ordered the respondent to pay interest on the principal amount and the interest accrued, to be paid within two months. The Court clarified that interest is not a penalty but a normal accretion on capital, ensuring equity in financial transactions.

3. The judgment emphasized the importance of paying interest along with the principal amount to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court modified the previous judgment, stating that interest should be paid on both the principal and the interest accrued, emphasizing the equitable nature of interest payments. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, providing clarity on the calculation and payment of interest in such cases.

---