DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs N.D.SHARMA

THE present appeal arises out of an order of the District Forum-II dated 12.1.1995, passed in Complaint Case No. 1270/93 entitled - Shri N.D. Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority.

THE admitted facts in brief are, that the respondent/complainant had been allotted Flat No. 61, Pocket-2, Block-6, in Rohini, Delhi vide letter dated 5.3.1990. THE respondent paid the demanded amount of Rs. 1,45,987.81 on 3.5.1990. THEreafter, the appellant/DDA vide letter dated 7.1.1991 asked the respondent to deposit a further sum of Rs. 730/- on account of actual period interest which was duly deposited by the respondent on 8.1.1991. THE appellant then issued possession letter on 14.1.1991. THE respondent was also required to deposit the water security charges which he deposited on 27.3.1991, but the physical possession of the flat was actually delivered on 16.4.1991. THE respondent had claimed interest for the delayed possession and on denial of the same approached the District Forum with his complaint. The defence of the appellant before the District Forum was that the delay in possession of the flat had been occasioned by the respondent himself who had deposited balance payment in respect of the flat only on 8.1.1991 and the water security charges on 27.3.1991 whereas the appellant had issued the possession letter on 14.1.1991 and the possession was delivered on 16.4.1991 and as such there was no delay on its part and no interest was, therefore, payable by it as per its policy.

The learned District Forum however held that there was delay of about 10 months on the part of appellant/DDA and awarded interest to the respondent @ 15% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,54,700/- for the said period of delay, as well as Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and cost.

AGGRIEVED by the said order the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent who entered appearance in person. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. The appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned District Forum has erred in holding that the appellant was deficient in service on account of delay in handing over the possession of the flat without considering the facts of the case that the respondent had paid the balance amount of Rs. 730/- only on 8.1.1991 and that the appellant had promptly issued the possession letter on 16.1.1991 as such there was no delay on its part. The said plea of the appellant is without force. It is not denied that the full payment as demanded, was paid by the appellant on 3.5.1990. Even if it is taken into consideration that the relevant documents were deposited by the respondent in piecemeal by 14.5.1990, even then there is no logical explanation for the demand of Rs. 730/- on 7.1.1991, i.e. after a gap of approximately 9 months. It is also not denied that the said amount was paid by the respondent with utmost promptitude, i.e. on 8.1.1991, the next day itself. Similarly had the requirement of deposit of water security charges been intimated to respondent soon after the completion of other necessary formalities, the same would have been complied with by the respondent earlier. The delay on all these counts by the appellant remains unexplained and as such the appellant cannot pass on the blame for the lapse on the respondent for the delayed possession.

THE appellant has also challenged the award of interest @ 15% per annum on Rs. 1,54,700/- for the period of 10 months and award of compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. In a recent decision, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority, etc. etc. v. Union of India & Anr., reported as II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 654, has held that the rate of interest awarded should neither be too high or too low and further approved the rate of interest at 12% per annum as the ideal rate to be granted in normal circumstances. It was only in cases of extraordinarily hardship and peculiar facts of the case that interest @ 15% per annum could be considered to be appropriate. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Apex Court we reduce the rate of interest from 15% to 12% per annum, as there are no special circumstances to warrant the grant of interest @ 15% per annum. However, the grant of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and costs is reasonable and just in the given facts of the case. For the above reasons the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay interest @ 12% per annum on Rs. 1,54,700/- for 10 months. The remaining directions contained in the impugned order are upheld and be complied with within 60 days of the receipt of this order.

THE present appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal partly allowed.