GHAZIABAD DEV. AUTHORITY vs R.B. SHARMA

PETITIONER, Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) who was opposite party before the District Forum has filed this petition aggrieved by the orders of both the lower Fora.

BRIEF facts necessary to appreciate the case are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 58,020 on 18.7.1989 for allotment of a house. A house was reserved on 26.10.1989 by the petitioner. The house was to be completed within two and a half years i.e. by early 1992. The complainant deposited the entire amount in between. When the delivery of the house was nowhere in sight the complainant approached the petitioner in 1993 to refund of deposited amount which was done but after deducting 10% of the Registration amount i.e.. Rs. 5.800. Feeling aggrieved by this deduction, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum who after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the deducted amount along with interest 18% p.a. from the date of deposit failing which the date of interest was to go upto 21% p.a. An appeal was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by the State Commission with the modification that rate of interest in case of delay in payment was also to be 18% p.a. hence, this revision petition.

It is argued by the petitioner that deduction of 10% on refund of amount made at the request of the complainant is as per rules, hence, the petitioner cannot be held liable. It is true that houses should have been declared by January, 1992, but same was not the essence of the contract. The reasons of delay were not gone into by the lower Fora. There is no deficiency of service. On all these grounds the orders of both the lower Fora are bad and need to be set aside.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that registration of the house was done in July, 1989. Reservation was done in October 1989. Full payment was made in time. Delivery of the house should have been made in January., 1992. This was not done. We have held severally this to be a deficiency of service. Scheduled period of completion was 2 years. Consumer cannot be expected to wait endlessly. If deficiency is on the part of the petitioner, he needs to be held accountable for this for which least that can be done is to refund the full amount without interest. If the complainant had come in revision then the complainant would have got interest @ 12% for whole of the amount. We see no rationale for deduction of 10% of the registration amount especially when the deficiency by way of delay in handing over the possession is on the part of petitioner. No grounds are shown to interfere in the orders of the two lower Fora. We see no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.