G.D.A. vs SHREESH CHANDRA

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 5.5.1998 passed by District Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 212/1996.

FACTS of the case, in brief, are : That on 16.3.1992 opposite party- complainant applied for a single storey house in Rachna Scheme of the appellant-Ghaziabad Development Authority and deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Thereafter, by letter dated 4.9.1992, Reservation-cum-payment schedule was issued according to which the complainant deposited the amount. But despite this, the possession of the house was not delivered within the specified time and returned the amount without any interest. Thus, the complainant claimed interest over the amount deposited. The opposite party in the written statement has alleged that the deposited amount has been returned; hence he is not a consumer. Learned Counsel Mr. Arvind Kumar and respondent have been heard.

According to the learned Counsel for appellant the houses, in the present scheme, could not be delivered hence on the request of the complainant house has been allotted to him under a different scheme. Learned Counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the letter of the complainant dated 15.5.1995 and argued that on the basis of this letter, plot was allotted in Rachna Finance Scheme. This letter has been produced before this Commission in which the complainant has informed to the appellant that he is not interested in this plot, allotted to him under Vaishali Scheme.

ACCORDING to earlier letter issued by complainant on 6th August, 1994 the complainant has informed the appellant that he is interested in a HIG house in Raj Nagar, District Ghaziabad, but we find that no house was allotted in Raj Nagar as prayed for by the complainant. But a plot was allotted in lieu of house. Therefore, in view of these facts it could not be said that the plot was allotted at the request of the complainant. Thus, the complainant was entitled for interest on the amount deposited by him. The judgment of the District Forum is perfectly correct and no interference is required. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Let the compliance be made within four weeks. Appeal dismissed.