ALLAHABAD VIKAS PRADHIKARAN vs RANI SHARMA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.7.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 544/1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a L.I.G. Flat in the year 1980. By letter dated 16.9.1993 the Allahabad Development Authority allotted Flat No. 7 to the complainant, the cost of which was Rs. 54,358/-. THE possession of this flat was also given to the complainant on 25.4.1984. This was a flat of hire purchase scheme, the instalment of which was Rs. 431.16 per month. THE amount was to be paid in 15 years time. THE complainant upto this time paid a sum of Rs. 43,882.40 and a balance of Rs. 10,469.60 was to be paid by the complainant. On every instalment 4% interest is also being charged which is not proper. When the complainant went to deposit Rs. 10,467.60 in January, 1992 with the opposite party she was told that about Rs. 60,000/- was due. THE complainant was sent a notice by the opposite party demanding a sum of Rs. 68,322.50 including other charges. Total sum of Rs. 69,547.50 was demanded by the opposite party from the complainant. By letter dated 25.4.1995, it was intimated that the allotment has been cancelled and the possession over the house was demanded back by the opposite party. THE complainant has prayed for cancellation of this notice and for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the L.I.G. House No. 7 worth Rs. 54,350/- was allotted to the complainant. The complainant has not paid all the instalments in time for which the complainant was informed by notice. The complainant has sold this flat to Smt. Rekha Banerjee which is contrary to the rules. It is alleged that the complainant is not a consumer and complaint is barred by limitation.

The parties led evidence before the learned District Forum, who after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that the price of the flat will not be increased beyond Rs. 54,350/-. The order dated 25.4.1995 was quashed. It was directed that a representation shall be moved by the complainant which shall be decided by the opposite party.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the opposite party, Allahabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that no enhancement in the price has been done and there is no evidence to show that the Allahabad Development Authority had demanded extra amount. According to the learned Counsel the complainant had not paid all the instalments in time. Hence the penal interest will be charged. A perusal of the file will go to show that the opposite party has not intimated that any extra amount has to be paid by the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that when she went to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 10,467.60 a sum of Rs. 69,547.50 was demanded from her. There is no paper on record to show that the Allahabad Development Authority had demanded this amount. When there was no escalation in the price, the Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran would not have demanded any extra amount towards the price of the flat. The payment which has to be made, according to the Allahabad Development Authority, is on account of the penal interest as all the instalments were not paid in time. The complainant is bound to pay the amount of interest along with penal interest. If the instalments have been paid in time, then penal interest for the above period is not to be paid by the complainant. The learned District Forum has not considered this aspect of the matter and has merely ordered that a representation shall be made by the complainant which shall be decided by the Allahabad Development Authority. In the present case there is no question of making any representation because of price of the flat is fixed and it has only to be seen as to whether all the instalments were deposited in time or not. If the instalments, as alleged by the Allahabad Development Authority have not been deposited in time, then the complainant has to pay the penal interest.

EVEN according to the case of the complainant, she is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,467.60 which she went to pay to the Allahabad Development Authority but it refused. According to the complainant she went to deposit the amount in January, 1992. When this amount was not accepted by the Allahabad Development Authority, the complainant is not bound to pay any interest over this amount with effect from January, 1992. The complainant will pay the other instalments which have become due along with penal interest on the instalments which were not paid by her in time. Thus, in view of these facts, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that the Allahabad Development Authority shall within a period of one month intimate the complainant the total amount which has to be paid by the complainant giving details of the penal interest on the instalments due and the period for which the same is due. When it is received by the complainant the same shall be paid by the complainant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of communication. After the payment of the entire amount, the Allahabad Development Authority will execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant after intimating the formalities which the complainant has to complete. No interest shall be charged by ADA on Rs. 10,467/- after January, 1992. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.