G.D.A. vs SARVADAMAN SINGH TOMAR

THIS is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 162/1998.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a house under LIG category in self-financing scheme of Pratap Vihar. THE application was made on 18th May, 1990 and the Ghaziabad Development Authority reserved a house on 30th April, 1991. THE complainant had deposited Rs. 45,000/- as cost of the house on 12.7.1993, but even after the lapse of 9 years the possession of the house has not been delivered to him. THE complainant has prayed for refund of the deposited amount alongwith 18% per annum interest. The opposite party has alleged in the written version that the price indicated was tentative and the final costing shall be done after completion of the house only. It has also been mentioned that the possession letter has not been issued so far and if the complainant wants to take back the amount, it can do so after showing the receipt.

The learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority to refund the amount with 18% per annum interest. It also awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 200/- as cost of the proceedings. It also directed that if the compliance is not made within two months, then the interest shall be payable at the rate of 21% per annum.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant without issuing notice to the respondent/complainant.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant can take back the money deposited by him in accordance with the terms of brochure. In the present case it is clear that even after nine years the appellant has not been in a position to deliver the possession of the house. It is a high-handedness on the part of Ghaziabad Development Authority that after taking the entire money from the allottee, possession has not been delivered despite the fact that the house was allotted nine years back. This is misuse of the fund by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and gross deficiency in service. Thus the order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly right and no interference is required on the facts of the case. However, the final interest which has been awarded at the rate of 21% is reduced to 18% per annum in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Surender Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 592; and Lata Construction Company & Ors. v. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors., III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 77=1999 (9) Supreme 534. Thus the appeal is liable to be allowed in part as indicated above. Order The appeal is allowed to the extent that interest at the rate of 21% per annum is quashed and the same is payable only at the rate of 18% per annum. With this modification the rest of the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.