DHRUWA NARAIN SHUKLA vs LUKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.5.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 160/1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a single storey house in Tikait-Rai-Talab Scheme of the Lucknow Development Authority. THE complainant received an allotment letter dated 24.4.1989 by which the complainant was allotted house No. 613/11. He was to deposit the rest of the amount of Rs. 79,500/- in quarterly instalments. THE instalments were of Rs. 13,250/-. In all a sum of Rs. 84,500/- had been deposited by the complainant. THE complainant has not been given possession of the house and the registration of sale deed has also not been done so far. THE complainant met the officials several times and met representatives of the Lucknow Development Authority for possession of house No. 613/11 but no heed was paid. Ultimately the complainant went to the premises and found that unauthorised possession has been taken by some other persons and they are living in that house. THE complainant informed this fact to the Lucknow Development Authority. THEreafter by letter dated 19.3.1993 the Lucknow Development Authority further demanded an additional sum of Rs. 21,500/- which was intimated as escalated price. A sum of Rs. 3574.40 was also demanded as interest at the rate of 21% per annum. According to the complainant on similar houses the allottees have been given possession about 1 years back. THE complainant has been denied the possession. THE complainant has prayed that possession of the house be handed over to him and registration of sale deed be done. He has also claimed damages and amount of rent which he had to pay on account of non-delivery of possession. In all the complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 1,43,500/- as damages and interest paid to the Lucknow Development Authority. The opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority, in the written reply has alleged that after the final calculation a sum of Rs. 21,500/- was found due which was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 19.3.1993. The complainant has not deposited this amount and the possession can be given to him on deposit of this amount. The costing of the house was done after completion of the house. Therefore, it was not done in the year 1990 but was done in the year 1993.

The parties led evidence before the learned District Forum, who after perusing the same and hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on behalf of the complainant. Hence it directed the complainant to deposit the entire amount demanded by the Lucknow Development Authority and to complete the formalities within a period of 15 days and thereafter the possession can be delivered to the complainant and the registration shall also be done. If the opposite party delays the possession and registration, then it will have to pay interest on the cost of the house at the rate of 20% per annum.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainants. Written arguments have been filed by the respondent/opposite party.

ACCORDING to the allegations of the complainant, the house was completed in the year 1989 and there was no justification for the Lucknow Development Authority to have informed the complainant about the escalation of the cost in the year 1993. It has not come specifically either in the evidence of the complainant or in the evidence of the Lucknow Development Authority as to when this house was completed. It is only during the course of arguments it was informed that the house was completed in the year 1989. In the complaint it has also been alleged by the complainant that the complainant visited the site and found that certain persons are living in this house as well as in the adjoining houses. He made a representation to Lucknow Development Authority on 7.7.1992. This means that the houses were completed only in July, 1992. Unless there is a definite evidence that the houses were constructed in the year 1989 and the Lucknow Development Authority took unduly long time in intimating the escalated price, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority. The Lucknow Development Authority in Para 11 of the written statement has alleged that the calculation of the cost is done only after completion of the house. Therefore, it could not have been done in the year 1989 but was done in the year 1993. The complainant has failed to prove that the construction was completed in the year 1989. As far as the escalation of the price is concerned the complainant is bound to pay the same as it was intimated to him. This Commission or the District Fora has no jurisdiction to go into the costing of the house once it is proved that there was no undue delay in calculating the cost of the house. The possession could not be delivered by the Lucknow Development Authority only because the complainant had not deposited the escalated cost. The learned District Forum has directed the complainant to deposit the escalation cost along with interest. We do not find any justification for directing the complainant to pay the interest on the excalation cost because some persons were living in unauthorised manner which fact was pointed out by the complainant to the authorities in July 1993.

THE judgment and order of the learned District Forum in view of the above mentioned facts are correct and are confirmed. THE complainant will now deposit the escalated cost and thereafter the Lucknow Development Authority will intimate the formalities which are to be completed as directed by the learned District Forum and thereafter the possession shall be delivered to the complainant and sale deed shall be registered. THE appeal is liable to be allowed in part. ORDER

THE appeal is allowed in part. THE complainant shall not be liable to pay interest on the escalated cost of the house. With the above modification, the rest portion of the judgment and order of the learned District Forum is confirmed. THEre will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal partly allowed.