AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MURARI LAL GOEL

THESE thirteen appeals arise out of a common Order dated July 13, 1992 of District Forum, Agra. The appellant in each of these cases is the Agra Development Authority. The respondents were complainants before the District Forum.

THE undisputed facts are that the Agra Development Authority got several shops constructed on the ground floor of building No. 8/146, in Chhatta Ward and allotted them on 90 years lease to various people, including the complainants. THE amount of advance payment made by the complainants was to be followed by payment in 28 quarterly instalments with interest at the rate of 15% In case of delay in payment of any instalment additional interest at the rate of 2% was to be paid by way of penalty. The complainants were asked to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum in respect of the entire amount due under each instalment. When they failed to convince the Agra Development Authority that the additional interest was payable only on the amount of that instalment which was not paid within time, the complaints were filed.

The District Forum, after considering the rival versions and the evidence in that regard came to the conclusion that the payment of interest at the rate of 18% in respect of each instalment was incorrect and that additional interest at the rate of 2% over and above that at 15%, was payable only in respect of those instalments of which payment was not made within time. Sri Mahesh Chandra, Adovcate who appeared for the Agra Development Authority has not been able to seriously question the correctness of this decision. Sri Rajesh Chaddha, Counsel for the complainants, is plainly right in his submission that the view taken by the District Forum is consistent with the terms of the agreement between the parties and is in accord with the legal position.

WHAT was next urged by Sri Mahesh Chandra with some emphasis was that the nature of the dispute brought before the District Forum was not covered by the definition of "deficiency" contained in Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such, the matter could not be gone into by the District Forum : Section 2(g) reads:- "deficiency" means any fault, imperfecttion, short-coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any Law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in persuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

THE Agra Development Authority not only undertook to offer the shop to the complainants on lease for a period of 90 years but also undertook to do so on the complainants making payment there for to it of the price in instalments after they had paid the initial amount to it. THE amount of these instalments was to carry also the liability of payment of interest at 15 and an additional amount of interest at the rate of 2% where the payment was not made within time. THE manner of performance of the service included the mode and quantum of payment which would be covered by the word "Deficiency" u/Sec. 2(g). Thus viewed, the action of the Agra Development Authority in requiring the complainants to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the amount of every instalment would be a deficiency on its part in the manner of performance of service undertaken to be performed by it in persuance of the agreement between the parties. THE Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being a social welfare legislation clearly admits of wider interpretation being put on the definition of "Deficiency " in Section 2(g). That is the clear intendment of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994 (1) SCC 243). The appeals have no merit and are dismissed with cost which is fixed at Rs. 500/- in all the appeals together. Copies of this decision shall be placed on the file of each appeal and shall also be made available to parties as per Rules. Appeal dismissed.