EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD vs Satyendra Singh

PETITIONER-Housing Board was the opposite party before the District Forum. 1. Complainant-respondent applied for allotment of an MIG flat in a Housing Colony floated by the petitioner. Complainant applied on 22.5.1980 and same day he paid Rs. 6,500/- as earnest money. He was informed that as per the lottery held on 11.3.1992 he had been allotted one MIG flat in the colony and was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 38,245/- as the first instalment before execution of the deed of agreement. At that time complainant was told that tentative price was fixed at Rs. 1,48,483/-. Allotment letter is dated 9.6.1992 and complainant was required to deposit the amount within one month of the receipt of the letter and he deposited the amount of Rs. 38,245/- on 3.9.1992. Complainant says that in spite of his repeated reminders petitioner did not send any letter showing its readiness to execute deed of agreement in his favour. Ultimately petitioner did send letter dated 15.5.1997 and where it was pointed out that the price of the flat was raised to Rs. 3,54,768/-. Complainant was asked to deposit 30% of this amount before deed of agreement could be executed and vacant possession of the flat given to the complainant. Complaint was that there was abnormal delay which was caused by the negligence of the petitioner. Complainant, therefore, sought direction in the complaint to the petitioner for execution of agreement in terms of original allotment price. PETITIONER did admit this fact. However, it was stated by the petitioner that since the complainant did not furnish the requisite documents timely execution of the deed agreement could not be done. District Forum after examining evidence on record was of the opinion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the complainant as well. It, therefore, directed that the amount of Rs. 44,745/- paid by the complainant be refunded to him with interest @ 4% per annum from 4.9.1992 to 1.6.1997 and, therefore, @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 44,745/- till realisation. This was so as the documents had been submitted by the complainant on 2.6.1997. Complainant could not get the allotment because of the escalated cost of the flat.

AGGRIEVED from this order, petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission. It was dismissed on the ground of delay as the delay was not condoned. It was submitted by Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was only delay of 45 days and that was normal because of the bifurcation of the State of Bihar and that the State Commission should not have taken such a strict view of the matter and it should have heard the matter on merit. We need not go into the question whether the delay should have been condoned since we ourselves examined the matter with the help of Mr. Sinha. We do not find any error in the order of the District Forum and the ultimate order passed by it. Mr. Sinha submitted that since it was found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the complainant no interest should have been granted. We need not go into this question as for delayed possession rate of interest has to be 18% per annum, here it had been awarded @ 4% per annum. Admittedly possession of the flat was not offered before 1997. This petition, therefore, in our view has no merit and is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.