GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs GAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 1033/1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that complainant applied for a plot in Govindpuram Scheme and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,800/- as registration amount on 2.10.1987. THE Ghaziabad Development Authority vide their letter dated 5th April, 1989 intimated that a plot has been reserved for the complainant in this scheme. A schedule of payment was also issued, according to which the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 11,600/- on 3rd May, 1989. THE rest of the amount of Rs. 48,480/- was deposited from 20.7.1989 to 21.1.1992 in six instalments. Thus in this way a sum of Rs. 65,880/- was deposited by the complainant. It was further alleged that the plots were expected to be ready for delivery of possession within two years, but inspite of making all the payments in time, Ghaziabad Development Authority did not hand over possession of the plot in question within time. Complainant sent various letters to the Ghaziabad Development Authority for delivery of possession of the plot but no reply was given to him. THE complainant has alleged that he had taken house building advance on which he had to pay interest also which the Development Authority must pay. THEre is deficiency on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority in not delivering the possession of the plot within the stipulated period. THE complainant has, therefore, asked for possession of the plot allotted to him alongwith 20% per annum interest on the deposited amount. He has also prayed for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation as well as cost of the litigation alongwith other reliefs. Ghaziabad Development Authority in its written version alleged that the delay in handing over possession was on account of the stay order of the Hon''ble High Court which was operative from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993. According to Ghaziabad Development Authority there is no deficiency in service because the development work could not be done on account of this stay order.

The learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties directed for handing over possession of the property within two months of passing of the order. It also granted interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 1.11.1990 to 24.4.1991 and from 17.12.1993 till the date of handing over possession at the same rate. It also directed for refund of the penal interest which may have been collected by the Ghaziabad Development Authority after 1.11.1990. Ghaziabad Development Authority was also asked to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- for mental torture and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- towards expenses incurred by the complainant for filing the case. It also directed that the interest will be payable at the rate of 18% per annum if delay is made in future.

AGGRIEVED against this order the complainant as well as Ghaziabad Development Authority have come in appeal and have challenged the correctness of the order of the learned District Forum. Appeal No. 1510/1995 was filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority against the complainant which has been decided by this Commission on 20.11.1998. This appeal filed by the complainant was not included in that bunch. Hence it could not be disposed of at that time alongwith the bunch and it is how being taken up for decision.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant has argued that Ghaziabad Development Authority did not develop the plot which they had to do in the year 1990 because the scheme was floated in the year 1988 and the expected date of possession was two years. We have already, in many cases, held that this was a tentative date for handing over possession of the plot and it can be extended by about six months. For a period of six months we have not considered it to be a deficiency on the part of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. No doubt in this case the stay order was passed on 24.4.1991 which remained in operation upto 16.12.1993. When the possession was to be delivered by the end of 1990 the Ghaziabad Development Authority could not hand over the possession by that time, but after giving a grace period of six months the possession should have been handed over by the end of June, 1991. Therefore, the possession could not be handed over by Ghaziabad Development Authority as the stay order became operative during this period. The learned District Forum found in its judgment that no doubt there was some delay on the part of Ghaziabad Development Authority but the laying of sewer line, construction of road etc. was held up on account of the stay order which was granted in respect of the disputed plot. The sewer line as well as water supply line, roads etc. were to be passed through the disputed property. Hence the development work could not be taken up by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. In the light of these findings it is clear that the Ghaziabad Development Authority was prevented from doing any development work over the plot in dispute also. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any interest upto the date the stay order remained in force. The learned District Forum has awarded interest from 17.12.1993. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned District Forum when it refused to grant interest for the period during which the stay order remained in operation. Thus this contention of the learned District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Learned Counsel for the complainant has further argued that had the possession of the plot been handed over to the complainant during the year 1990, then the cost of construction would have been lower than what it would have been now. On this account due to escalation in construction cost the learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be awarded as compensation. We have a copy of the complaint before us and we find that the complainant has not prayed for any compensation on account of the increased cost of construction. The complainant has merely prayed for Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension etc. The learned District Counsel has already allowed a sum of Rs. 2,500/- under this head. In the grounds of appeal the escalation of cost has been prayed for. There is a general prayer in the complaint for any other relief which may be deemed fit by the Court may be granted. It is a fact that there has been escalation in price in construction. The prices of inputs which are required for construction of a house have considerably increased during this period. As the possession has been delivered late the cost of construction went up. Had the possession been delivered within a period of two months from the date of the order of the learned District Forum, then there would not have been any justification for allowing the escalation in cost as the same has not been allowed by the learned District Forum, but the possession has been delayed for many years. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get escalation of cost in construction. The complainant has not filed any evidence to show as to what is the actual escalation in cost of construction. Therefore, only a nominal amount can be allowed to the complainant under this head. In our view a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be sufficient under this head, because the Court at this State Commission can suitably amend the relief and grant proper relief which a party is entitled to get. Thus the result is that the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on the ground of escalation in costs.

THE appeal is liable to be allowed in part. Order THE appeal is allowed in part to the extent that Ghaziabad Development Authority shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall be payable by Ghaziabad Development Authority. Ghaziabad Development Authority shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost to the appellant. Let copy as per rules be issued to the parties. Appeal partly allowed.