GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs AJAY SWAROOP CHOUDHARI

THESE are two cross-appeals against the same judgment and order dated 3.7.2003 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 64/1999 allowing Rs. 1,00,000/- for the cost of repairs of the house allotted to the complainant with 8% interest and Rs. 800/- cost of litigation.

IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority Sri Arvind Kumar assisted by Sri V.P. Rai that before taking possession no objection regarding bad construction of the house was given by the complainant/allottee, hence no cost for the repairs should be paid to him. The complainant/allottee Sri Ajay Swaroop Choudhari''s learned Counsel Mr. V.P. Sharma argued that written statement has been filed by the Advocate and he was not authorised to file the written statement. There was no affidavit or any evidence by the Ghaziabad Development Authority to deny the allegations of the complainant/allottee, hence his case is unrebutted and the decision taken by the Forum should stand.

We have perused the file and affidavit filed by Sri Choudhari complainant/allottee in the District Forum wherein he has mentioned that several defects were existing in the house such as cavitation has crept in the floor of a room; neither the floor of the house was rubbed nor polished; iron frames fixed in the walls were sub-standard and shattered; the doors were broken and there was no door in one of the gates, tiles were broken; roof was not soiled, electric wirings were not fitted, no gate was provided at the main entrance. Entry from the road to the house was not provided and a Nallah in between the road and the house was not covered by a culvert and even the Nallah was not constructed. Sanitary fittings were not available. Nothing is there on the record of the Forum to rebut the evidence about these defects. The complainant before the Forum has filed an affidavit of Engineer/Contractor Sri Kishore Khayani and he has affirmed on oath that an estimate of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been prepared by him. There is however no evidence about the real expenditure. No receipts are there before us to conclude what was the actual expenditure on the repairs but there is no doubt that there were defects in the house allotted to Mr. Choudhari and it needed rectification and the repair has been done.

THE Ghaziabad Development Authority''s learned Counsel has argued that since no evidence of definite expenditure on the file about the quantum of amount of repairs, the decretal amount is excessive. Considering the defects shown in the affidavit of Sri Choudhari, it seems logical that evaluating Rs. 80,000/- as repair cost will meet the ends of justice. In these circumstances, there is no justification for allowing interest also because the possession was already taken and the complainant was residing in that house. Judgment will be confined to the facts of this case and will not be treated as procedence. ORDER THE appeal of Ghaziabad Development Authority partly succeeds. THE amount of compensation held payable is reduced to Rs. 80,000/- from Rs. 1,00,000/-. THE appeal of the complainant is dismissed as it has been held that no interest is payable. THE parties will bear their own costs. Payment shall be made within one month. Let original copy of this order be kept in Appeal File No. A/2045/SC/2003 and a certified copy of this order be placed in the Appeal File No. A/2093/SC/2003 which shall also be governed by this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Ordered accordingly.