DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs KRISHAN LAL NANDRAYOG

THIS order will dispose of Revision Petition Nos. 627 of 1995 and Revision Petition No. 375 of 1995 as the facts in both the cases are the same and the order appealed against is also the same.

THE limited point for decision in this case is as to whether the Delhi Development Authority is liable to pay interest for delay, after the specified period, in issuing the letter of allotment and compensation for delay in handing over the possession after issuing the letter of allotment. THE District Forum-II, Delhi, where these complaints were filed in the first instance, held that the Delhi Development Authority cannot wriggle out from their commitment to pay interest at the rate of 7% p.a. for the period of the delay beyond 2 years from the date of acceptance of the application upto the date of issuance of the possession letter in view of the provision in the brochure for the 5th Self-Financing Housing Scheme, 1982 (SFS). THE District Forum further directed the Delhi Development Authority to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the 16th day of the issuance of the possession letter upto the date of the delivery of the possession and Rs. 2,000/- as damages and costs of litigation to each of the complainants before them. THE Delhi Development Authority appealed against this order of the District Forum dated July, 1992 before the State Commission, Delhi, which after examining the conditions as contained in Clause 10 of the Brochure issued by the Authority in 1992, not only upheld the decision of the District Forum in regard to the payment of interest but also examined the effect of amendment of Clause 10 of the brochure for varying rates of interests for different periods. Clause 10 (the unamended) of the brochures reads as follows: "10: THE registration deposit will carry interest @ 7% per annum. THE interest amount will be credited to his/her account annually and interest thereon will be adjusted towards the payment of the first instalment or at the latest in the second instalment. This interest will be payable upto the date of draw of lots. No interest will, however, be paid in case the deposit is withdrawn before the expiry of one year. No interest would be payable on the payments made by the applicants towards the cost of flat as long as they are able to secure the flat within two and a half years of the acceptance of the applications for the scheme concerned in their favour. Interest @ 7% on the amount deposited will be payable for the period beyond two and a half years to the date of the issue of possession letter if the construction of the houses is not completed by then."

In accordance with the unamended Clause 10, the Delhi Development Authority was liable to pay interest at the rate 7% p.a. on the amount deposited for the period beyond 2 years, if the construction of the house was not completed by then and upto the date of the issue of the possession letter. However, according to the amended clause the Delhi Development Authority became liable to pay interest on the amount deposited at the rate of 7% p.a. upto 36th months and 10% p.a. beyond the 36th month upto the date of issuance of the 5th and final demand letter. THE State Commission, therefore, held that the Delhi Development Authority was liable to pay interest in terms of the said amended clause. As regards delay in, (a) the issue of letter of possession after the formalities were completed by the allottee, and (b) handing over of the possession of the flat to an allottee, the State Commission held that a period of three weeks each in respect of both the stages of action is reasonable enough for the Delhi Development Authority to complete the formalities and do the needful. For delay beyond this period of three weeks, the State Commission awarded an interest @ 15% on the total price of the flat to each complainant allottee. Appreciating the anxiety, tension and harassment, caused to the allottees by such delays, the State Commission also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as damages to each of the complainant allottee.

As there were a large number of applications running into hundreds, and the complete information had not been produced in respect of them, a Commission was appointed by the State Commission, Delhi, to record the evidence and determine the dates for arriving at the period for which interest was to be paid. That Commission did a thorough job and a chart prepared by them was produced before us by the Delhi Development Authority showing the name of the allottee, date of issue of demand letter, date of completing the formalities, date of issue of letter of allotment, date of approach at site for possession and date of handing over physical possession in respect of 256 complainant allottees. This chart also shows the number of days taken for completing the formalities for issuing the letter of possession and thereafter handing over the possession. We find from his chart that the time taken ranges from 0 to 340 days, which itself does not speak very well of the functioning of the Delhi Development Authority. No explanation is available for this variation in time taken by the Delhi Development Authority, thus raising suspicions of all sorts.

WE have carefully considered the record of this case and have heard the Counsel for the Delhi Development Authority as well as for the respondents at great length. After a careful consideration of the facts of this case, of the legal issues involved and of the attending circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order of the Delhi State Commission dated 30.12.1994 is not only a detailed one but also deals with the case cogently and correctly. The State Commission, in our view, has rightly held that the Delhi Development Authority is liable to pay interest at the varying rates in accordance with Clause 10, as amended, to the allottees for any delay in issuing the letter of allotment after 2 years. WE also concur with the view that the delay in issuing letters after completing all the formalities and, thereafter in handing over possession do cause mental agony and harassment to the allottees, who deposited their life-time savings for getting a residential place to live in. Therefore, we uphold the order of the State Commission as regards 15% interest on the total price of the flat for delay beyond the period of three weeks along with Rs. 2,000/ - as damages for each complainant allottee. Taking the circumstances of unexplained delay into consideration, we would like to suggest that the Delhi Development Authority should fix the responsibility for this delay and recover the amount of interest paid @ 15% along with Rs. 2,000/- as damages, from the concerned officials so as to avoid the recurrence of such lapses in future. We make no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. _____________