IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1606/2025 (Against the Order dated 30th July 2025 in Appeal SC/23/A/18/293 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Madhya pradesh)

WITH i) NC/IA/15298/2025(STAY) ii) NC/IA/15299/2025(SUMMON IN THE RECORD)

iii) NC/IA/15300/2025(EXEMPTION FOR FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION)

M/S SHUBHAM BUILDERS & COLONISERS THROUGH D. S. BHATNAGAR PRESENT ADDRESS - C - LIG 548, KATARA HILLS, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH-462043. Petitioner(s)

Versus JAGDISH PRASAD GURJAR S/o. Late Radhelal Gurjar PRESENT ADDRESS - G-3/71,1100 QTR.

BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH-462016.

SAFARUDDIN S/o. Kutubuddin PRESENT ADDRESS - MUJADI COMPLEX, . BOMBAY COLLECTION, OPPOSITE LAKSHMI NARAYAN, AGRAWAL DHARMASHALA, LAKHERAPURA, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH-462001. Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate Dated : 05.01.2026

ORDER

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Challenge is to the order dated 30.07.2025 of the State Commission, vide which First Appeal No. 293/2018 filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed and the order of the District Commission was upheld. Earlier, the District Commission has allowed the complaint with the following direction:

17. Consequently, this complaint filed by the complainant is partially admitted and the opposite party No. 1 is ordered as follows -

I. Opposite party No. 1 shall pay the amount of Rs. 10,00,0007-

(Rupees Ten Lakh) to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, as per the terms of the agreement dated 7.3.11, along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the.

date of order till the date of payment.

II. Opposite party No.1 shall pay Rs. 5,0007- (Rupees five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

III. Opposite party No. 1 shall, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, pay Rs. 2,0007- (Rupees two thousand) to the complainant towards costs of the complaint.

2. The counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the document at pages 70-71, showing that he was in jail during the relevant period. The counsel for the petitioner argued that he could not file the written version before the District Commission as he was in jail during the relevant period, he has not been able to show us any evidence that he was not duly served by the District Commission.

3. The main contention of the petitioner herein is with respect to the rate of interest awarded by the District Commission. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that they are willing to refund the principal amount of Rs. 10 lakhs but with a reasonable rate of interest, as the rate of interest of

24% per annum is exorbitant.

4. We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission, District Commission, and other relevant records, in particular the agreement dated 07.03 2011, and heard the counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, normally this Commission allows refund with interest at generally 9% per annum, but the perusal of the order of the lower fora shows that refund along with 24% per annum interest has been allowed as the agreement in question envisaged refund at 24% per annum. Hence, this being the contractually agreed condition, the District Commission was justified in awarding the interest at

24% per annum.

5. Hence, we don’t see any illegality or material irregularity in this order of the District Commission in allowing the complaint and refund with interest @ 24% per annum and also the State Commission upholding the order of the District Commission and dismissing the First Appeal.

6. Accordingly, order of the State Commission is upheld; consequently, RP No. 1606/2025 is dismissed.

7. Pending lA’s, if. any, stand disposed off.

8. Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy