G.D.A. vs Harnam Singh

THIS is an appeal against judgment and order dated 22.6.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 234/1997.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant deposited sum of Rs. 13,000/- on 24.7.1991 in Hastinapuram Scheme for allotment of a plot. By letter dated 10.8.1992 a plot was reserved for the complainant in which the payment schedule was also given. In pursuance of the schedule of payment the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,49,500/- towards the cost of the plot. Inspite of the deposit of the entire amount, the opposite party has not handed over the possession so far. Hence the complainant requested for refund of the amount deposited by him alongwith interest. THE amount has been paid but the interest has not been paid to him so far. THE complainant has also claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost. The opposite party has admitted the allotment of a plot but has alleged that as the amount has been given back hence the complaint cannot be filed by him. The contract which was entered into between the parties has been broken by the complainant. Hence he is not entitled for any relief.

After hearing both the parties the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as cost and compensation. Interest at the rate of 21% was allowed in cases the amount is not paid within two months.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as respondent.

ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the appellant the refund was applied on 4.1.1995 and the amount was refunded. ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the appellant the scheme was dropped on 25.10.1997 and hence the complainant is not entitled for any interest. He has further argued that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the matter as the amount has already been refunded. It may be mentioned that the Forum had jurisdiction to decide the matter because if there is a deficiency in services of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, then the claim will lie before the State Commission. In the present case the amount was deposited in the year 1991 and the possession of the plot was to be given within two years which is a general period given by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for handing over possession of the plots after development of the same. In the present case no brochure has been filed by appellant to show that the period was not limited to two years but more period was given for handing over possession of the plot. Even if the possession could not be delivered for two years, some limit can be given to the Development Authority which may be six months more. As the possession of the plot was not delivered and no development work was done by Ghaziabad Development Authority, therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Thus we find that even if the refund of the deposited amount was made before the abandonment of the scheme, this does not mean that the claimant is not entitled to any damages or interest over the amount deposited by him. The opposite party cannot be given unlimited time for handing over possession of the property sold by it. Thus we find that there is deficiency in service and the District Forum has rightly tried the matter and awarded interest. As far as the interest is concerned, it is argued that the rates of 21% and 18% are on the higher side. On doubt interest more than 18% cannot be allowed in view of certain decision by the National Commission and the Hon''ble Supreme Court which may be considered now. The National Commission in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC), has held that the rate of interest that should be allowed to the complainant should be the same which the Authority recovers from allottees on defaulters on the amounts payable to it.

HON''ble Supreme Court in the case of Surender Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 592, has held that interest shall be payable at the rate of 18% per annum. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of Lata Construction Company & Ors. v. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors., III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC)= X (1999) SLT 77=(1999) 9 Supreme 534, has also upheld the interest of 18% in the case of builder.

THUS we find that the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. Order The appeal is allowed in part and the rate of interest is reduced to 18% per annum from 21% per annum. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum shall stand modified to this extent. Rest of the appeal is dismissed. Let compliance of this order be made within two months from the date of this order. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.