The Plaintiff aka Sri.Shaligram Prasad brought this lawsuit against the Defendant aka Jumbo King Foods Private Limited in an effort to recover Rs. 3,77,529 with expenses and interest. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant is involved in the VADA PAV business and the Defendant is a master franchisee for that industry in the Bengaluru region. Defendant offered the Plaintiff a franchise to operate a VADAPAV business in Bengaluru. The defendant persuaded the plaintiff to pay the franchisor a sum of Rs. 3,37,080/- by suggesting the location at Rajarajeshwari Nagar to conduct such business. The Plaintiff claims that after paying the franchise fee on December 11, 2013, the defendant promised to send him a letter outlining the rules and regulations and instructed him to sign an agreement. The Plaintiff claims that despite his readiness to conduct business, the Defendant failed to send the Rules and Regulations and to enter into an agreement. As a result, and because the Plaintiff found the Defendant’s actions to be suspicious and unsatisfactory, the Plaintiff no longer plans to open any franchises. The Plaintiff claims that on March 14, 2014, a legal notice was served on the defendant demanding the repayment of the franchise fee plus interest. After two months had passed, the defendant responded through his attorney, acknowledging receipt of the franchise fee but refusing to pay the requested sum. The Defendant acknowledged receiving a franchise fee from the Plaintiff on December 11, 2013. However, it is argued in that Reply Notice that the Defendants are not at fault in this situation and have refused to return the franchise fee since the Plaintiff was unable to decide on a location, which prevented the Plaintiff from opening the store. However, the Defendant did not appear to support the aforementioned claim and refute the Plaintiff’s testimony. Nothing in the Defendant’s favour would lead one to doubt the Plaintiff’s testimony. The only conclusion that could be reached under the circumstances, taking into account the stated facts presented by the Plaintiff and in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the Defendants to the contrary, is that the Defendant’s default prevented the Plaintiff from starting the business. It must be determined that the Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the franchise fee of Rs. 3,37,080/- from Defendant because Plaintiff paid the franchise fee, he was unable to launch his business due to Defendant’s default, and there is nothing on the part of the Defendants to demonstrate that the franchise fee is not refundable. The Plaintiff has requested interest at a rate of 18% P.A. starting on December 11, 2013. He hasn’t provided any evidence, though, to support this assertion. However, given that this lawsuit seeks to recover a franchise fee, which constitutes a debt, Section 3 of the Interest Act of 1978, along with the case’s facts and circumstances, make it seem just and appropriate to grant interest at the rate of Rs. 9 percent P.A., which is the rate applicable to deposits at the Nationalized Bank, starting on the date of the plaintiff’s demand. Because the Plaintiff issued the Legal Notice on March 14, 2014, demanding a refund of the franchise fee for the first time, he is entitled to interest beginning on that day.