G.D.A. vs Rakesh Kumar

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.8.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 279 of 1998.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a plot in Govindpuram Housing Scheme. He was allotted one 90 sq. mtrs. of plot in the year 1989. THE entire cost of plot of Rs. 55,800/- was deposited by the complainant but even till today the possession of plot has not been delivered to him. In 1997 he was informed that it is not possible to deliver the possession of the plot and the money can be refunded with 5% per annum interest. On receipt of this letter, the complainant requested Ghaziabad Development Authority for allotment of a house or plot in Koushambhi and Indrapuram but it was not done. The complainant has prayed that he should be given possession of the house immediately or the amount be refunded with 18% per annum interest.

The opposite party contested the case and has alleged that on 16.9.1998 a sum of Rs. 78,930/-, that is the total deposited amount alongwith 5% per annum interest has been paid back to the complainant which has been accepted by him. It is further alleged that on account of the Stay Order, the possession could not be delivered. The learned District Forum after considering the facts of the case allowed the complaint and awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for mental torture alongwith cost of Rs. 100/-. It was also provided that if the amount is not paid within two months then the interest payable shall be 20% per annum.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant without issuing notice to the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire amount has been refunded to the complainant alongwith 5% interest. According to the learned Counsel, the appellant is not liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum because the possession could not be delivered to the complainant on account of the Stay Order of the Hon''ble High Court. It may be noted that Stay Order of the Hon''ble High Court remained in force from 24.4.19991 to 23.12.1993. The Ghaziabad Development Authority could not develop the plot and deliver the possession to the complainant even after the vacation of the Stay Order. Thus, we find that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in not delivering over the possession of the plot to the complainant after developing the same.

THE learned Counsel has further argued that no interest should be awarded for the period in which the stay order was remained in force. This contention of the learned Counsel is correct because for no fault of the appellant the proceedings remain stayed. THErefore, the interest from 24.9.1991 to 23.12.1993 is not to be paid to the complainant. It has further been argued that the interest which has been granted to the complainant at the rate of 18% per annum is much on the higher side. This contention cannot be accepted. The appellant has kept this money with it for a sufficiently long period and utilised the same for its own purposes. The interest at the rate of 18% has been awarded by the National Commission in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC). Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra 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 Court Cases 534, has also upheld the interest of 18% in case of builder. It has further been argued that the penal interest at the rate of 20% per annum cannot be allowed by the learned District Forum. This argument is also sound and the interest at the rate of 20% per annum cannot be allowed in view of the above mentioned case laws. The rate of interest till payment of amount will be only 18% per annum.

WE have not issued notice to the respondent for the reason that it will put extra burden on the respondent. The questions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant have been settled by various decisions of this Commission, the Hon''ble National Commission and the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The issuing of notice would have added to the cost of the opposite party and the judgment would be the same even if the complainant is heard. The order passed by the learned District Forum is correct except for the fact that interest will be paid by the appellants @ 18% per annum only and the period from 24.4.1991 to 23.12.1993 shall be excluded and no interest will be payable by the appellants for this period when the stay order remained in force. Order The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the interest shall be payable at the rate of 18% per annum only from the date of deposit till the date of refund except for the period from 24.4.1991 to 23.12.1993. The rest portion of the judgment is confirmed with the above modification. Let compliance of this order be made within the period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.