G.D.A. vs KRISHNA KUMARJI

THE present Revision Petition is filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority against the order dated 8.5.2000 passed by State Commission, UP in Appeal No. 1098/SC/97 whereby the appeal of the Revisionist was dismissed and order of the District Forum dated 11.6.97 passed in Complaint No. 1015/95 was confirmed. Brief facts of the case are.

THE respondent/complainant Mr. Krishna Kumarji applied for allotment of plot in Govindpuram Housing Scheme and purchased the brochure on 10.2.1989, a plot was reserved in his name and payment schedule indicating prices of plot as Rs. 65,850/- was also sent. THE entire amount was paid within the time given. THE possession should have been delivered by 1.1.1991 as per brochure but till date the respondent was not given possession. Krishna Kumarji, therefore, filed a complaint in District Forum, Ghaziabad praying for handing over possession of the plot and also for payment of interest on the deposited amount till the date of handing over possession of the plot. He also prayed for award of Rs. 47,000/- paid by him towards for hiring additional accommodation, and also claimed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and cause. The District Forum awarded payment of interest at 18% on the deposited amount w.e.f. 1.1.1994 till the date of handing over the possession w.e.f. 1.1.94 and Rs. 2,000/- towards mental torture and cost of litigation and directed the petitioners to hand over fully developed plot with all civic amenities within a period of three months. Petitioner filed an appeal in the State Commission which was dismissed and the order of the District Forum was confirmed. Both the District Forum and the State Commission had accepted the revision petitioner''s contention that on account of stay order of the Hon''ble High Court from 24.4.1991 to 16.3.1993. the development work could not be done and the possession could not be given. The argument on behalf of GDA that during this period the respondent is not entitled to get any interest was accepted and accordingly after considering these facts of the case District Forum directed the petitioners to pay interest on the deposited amount from 1.1.1994 till the date of possession.

Now in the Revision Petition it is argued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority that interest at 18% which has been awarded is excessive and directions regarding possession also should be modified alongwith reduction in the rate of interest when this petition was admitted on 6th September, 2000 the Counsel for the revision petitioner stated that they are unable to deliver the plot as directed by the State Commission because there is a graveyard in the disputed plot and further that an alternative plot would be given. On 23.8.2002 on being questioned regarding handing over the plot to respondent time was taken for one week that both the parties would file affidavits as regards the present position of the vacant plots. Further time has been given to 10.9.2002, and then 4.10.2002 and 21.3.2003, 4.3.2003 and on 24.11.2003 and learned Counsel for the revision petitioner still did not file the counter affidavit to deny the statement made in the affidavit by the respondent which is on record that two plots were available for allocation as per the affidavit of respondent which has been filed.

PURSUANT to order dated 20.3.2002 the respondent filed an affidavit wherein they stated that "I came to know that after the direction issued by Hon''ble District Forum on 11.6.1997, two plots namely plot No. D-447 and D-489 were allotted by GDA. I humbly bow down before the direction of this Hon''ble Commission, I earnestly and humbly believe that the information about the availability of plots, need to be furnished by the petitioner, GDA". This affidavit has been filed by the respondent which has not been replied to by the petitioner till date. The Commission has held the case of HUDA v. R.P. Chawla, case No. 547-548 of 1997 (Revision Petition) that once a consumer is promised a plot of land and he paid the full price thereof within the time schedule as fixed, he had legitimate expectation that he would be given possession of the plot like any other applicant without discrimination. In the above case "Chawla was told by HUDA that an alternate plot would be allocated at a different sector, for which he should pay a higher price". This Commission held that Chawla has to be put in the same position as any other person who applied for allotment of plot at the same time, but luck favoured them and Chawla was not that lucky as his plot was entangled in litigation for nine years. He was not even made aware of the fact that he could not be given possession of the plot allotted to him. It was held "Question of Chawla being asked to pay additional price of the plot in the alternative sector could not arise. He has to be given plot of land by HUDA either in the same sector where he was originally allotted and for which he paid the full price or in any other sector at the same price. There has been great delay in handing over possession of the plot. Cost of construction has arisen all these years..... after nine years of wait, he could not be asked to pay price of the plot allotted to him in a different sector at a higher amount". As regards interest it has also been decided by this Commission in the similar circumstances that the allottee would be entitled to interest @18% p.a. and this interest amount shall be payable from the date of respective deposit of the amounts. State Commission and District Forum have rightly appreciated all the facts and in keeping in view of case HUDA v. R.P. Chawla passed reasoned orders. There is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the same for us to interfere in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the Revision Petition with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the respondent and confirm the order of the State Commission. Revision Petition dismissed.