GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs JOGINDER SINGH

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24,5.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 234/1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a house in HIG category in the Govindpuram Housing Scheme. He was allotted house No. A-303. By the time he had taken possession, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,13,563/- on 30.5.1991 and Rs. 20,500/- on 28.6.1991. THE possession letter was issued and thereafter the complainant was asked to deposit a further sum of Rs. 85,640/- towards the final costing of the house by 28.2.1992. In that letter a sum of Rs. 12,905/- towards lease rent was also demanded. It was also indicated that the possession should be taken, but this letter on account of wrong address could not be delivered to the complainant and hence possession could not be taken at that time. It is alleged by the complainant that it is deficiency of service, carelessness on the part of the officers and officials of the appellant. THE complainant was given possession of the house on 7.10.1994. THE complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for repairing of the house and Rs. 11,466/- interest and Chowkidarana charges which were wrongly realised from him. He has also prayed for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- also which was wrongly claimed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The opposite party in its written version has mentioned that after six months of taking possession of the property, the complaint has been filed and hence he is not a consumer. The possession letter was issued by registered post at the correct address. The allegations to the contrary are wrong. The interest, Chowkidarana charges etc. were charged on account of the fact that the possession was not taken by the complainant in time.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the complainant on the amount deposited by the complainant till 31.12.1993 for the period 1.1.1994 to 6.10.1994. It as also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost.

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 Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant without issuing notice to the opposite party as it would have unnecessarily burdened the opposite party financially for coming to this place. The judgment even otherwise would have been the same.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the last instalment was deposited on 28.6.1991 and the possession letter was issued on 2.2.1993. There is no proof on record to show that the possession letter which was issued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority was delivered to the complainant. The post office is the agent of the sender and it was the duty of the sender to prove that the letter was delivered to the addressee. According to the learned Counsel, the escalation cost letter was also issued on 2.2.1993. This escalation amount was deposited by the complainant on 24.11.1994 and 30.11.1994. In the present case the possession could not be taken by the complainant on account of the fault of Ghaziabad Development Authority. The learned District Forum has wrongly applied the stay order of the Hon''ble High Court which war not applicable to the houses but as there is no appeal from the side of the appellant hence we are unable to set aside chat finding even though it is not in accordance with the facts of the case. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum which has been awarded is on a higher side. We do not agree with this contention. The interest at the rate of 18% has been awarded by the National Commission in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC). Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kaur v. Govt, of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 592, has held that interest shall be payable at the rate of 18% per annum. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of CIII (1999) CPJ 46 (SC)=X(1999) SLT 77=1999 (9) Supreme 534, has also upheld the interest of 18% in case of builder. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.