Allahabad Development Authority vs Babu Lal

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ''Act'') against the judgment and order dated 26.12.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 217 of 1996.

INITIALLY a complaint was filed with the allegation that the complainant/respondent in accordance with allotment letter dated 29.2.1992 deposited the reservation money along with all the instalments as demanded for the land in question. The demanded instalments were deposited by 29.3.1994 and even the allotment was made of the land in question by the appellant on 4.9.1992. Inspite of lapse of two years the possession of the developed plot has not been handed over to the complainant and hence the complainant was forced to file the complaint. On the other hand the pleas of the appellant/opposite party as taken in the written statement was that no time limit for handing over the possession of the land has been given and even the delivery can only be made in accordance with the procedures. The plea taken in the written statement is that though the instalments were paid by the complainant in accordance with the payment schedule, the complainant refused to take possession. It was further stated that the deposited amount can be refunded after deducting 20% without any interest.

The learned District Forum taking into account various material available on record, passed by impugned order.

AGGRIEVED the opposite party, Allahabad Development Authority, has come in this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Deepak Mehrotra as well as Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Counsel for respondent. We have also perused the entire record.

THE impugned order on first count by Mr. Mehrotra was criticised that in passing the impugned order the learned District Forum travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties and in absence of the prayer for giving possession of the flat at the earliest, and the prayer being made for only refund of the money deposited by him along with interest, it was not open to come to a conclusion about the entitlement for the possession of the land and in question consequently of demand for possession refused, the complainant is entitled for interest. On the other hand, Mr. Srivastava learned Counsel for the respondent taking us to the pleadings contained in paras 10 and 11 and the reply thereof contained in the written statement, argued that there was a genuine and sincere demand for possession of the flat being delivered which was refused and as such he was entitled to refund of the money along with interest. It was also pleaded by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the authority/appellant did not refuse the delivery of the possession; rather it was the complainant himself who expressed his inability and unwillingness to take possession of the plot for which he has deposited the money. With a view to verify the respective submissions raised at the bar, we glanced through the averments contained in paras 10 and 11 of the complaint and its reply contained in the written statement and also the relevant clause. It is true that in the relevant clause the possession has not been demanded. It will have, however, no bearing. One of the cardinal principles of interpretation is to go by pith and substance. Averments contained in the complaint and the relevant clause will have to be seen together. In the instant case after the allegation of refusal for delivery of possession, the complainant did not like to get the possession because of the harassment and refusal by the opposite parties. It is not understandable as to why an allottee, after allotment of the property and after depositing the entire instalments and full payment, will not like delivery of possession. Evidence could not be shown by the appellant due to which unwillingness was shown by the complainant in getting the possession. Thus the contrary argument is of no avail. The next argument of Mr. Mehrotra was that the complainant is only entitled to get refund of the money after certain deductions as per the rules, and the payment of interest on the money paid towards such property in view of the conduct of the complainant could not have been ordered. He further stated that the impugned order has been passed ignoring this aspect of the matter. These two arguments too are of no substance. A huge sum was deposited in the instant case by the complainant as has been admitted too by the appellant. That money was blocked and even the complainant had been deprived of getting the possession. In case the money would not have been blocked, then the same could have been used for other purposes or it could also have been that if the complainant would have gathered an impression that he will not be able to get delivery of the plot, he would not have been interested in taking loan from other sources for satisfying the instalments. Thus in our considered view the complainant is entitled to get interest.

THEN it was contended by Mr. Mehrotra that in any case the rate of interest awarded should have been 6% on the same deposit, not 18% and even the argument was tried to be fortified by citing that the rate of interest is in the current form is around 4% as per the circular issued by Reserve Bank of India. Even the relief clause was attracted for reinforcing the argument for the rate of the interest wherein the claim has been made for refund of money by the complainant along with interest at the bank rate. On the other hand Mr. Nilesh Anand justified the rate of interest of 18''% and urged that for no fault of the complainant money was blocked with the appellant and this money was taken on loan for which the complainant had to pay exhorbitant interest and the reference to the pleadings in this connection was also made.

AS regards the arguments of awarding interest as per the circular of Reserve Bank of India is concerned, that is of no avail. It has been clearly held by the Hon''ble Apex Court of India in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authorioty v. Balbir Singh, that the Reserve Bank of India ciruclars providing the rate of interest is only a standard rate. Rate of interest to be awarded is to be coupled with the harassment, inconvenience, discomforture occasioned to the complainant on account of the blocking of the money and the frustration cropping up on account of undelivery of possession. It is a case in which for no plausible reason the complainant has been deprived of the possession. Although not strictly proved but averment is there of the complainant that he had to take loan from other agencies for depositing the instalments. "Longer the period, lesser the rate of interest" is one of the principles of the assessment of interest. Various factors with precision have not been offered to us. Thus we are left with only option to have a global aspect of the matter. Looking to the attending circumstances, in our view, the learned District Forum was not justified in awarding rate of interest at the rate of 18% as it was not one of the extreme cases of hardship occasioned to the complainant. However, the appropriate rate of interest should have been 12% and thus to that extent rate of interest is reduced to 12% from 18% as awarded by the learned District Forum. It has been brought to the notice of the Commission that on the strength of stay order a sum of Rs. 44,800/- has been deposited which needs adjustment, i.e., out of the total money payable to the complainant as per the directions, there will be adjustment of Rs. 44,800/- and only the remaining sum will be entitlement of the complainant. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The rate of interest of 18% is modified to 12%. Order with regard to the compensation of cost of the proceedings is not maintainable. In case the entire payment is not made to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of this order, the rate of interest payable on the entire amount shall be 15% per annum. No order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal partly allowed.