GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MANJU LATA JAIN

THIS is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 26.9.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 909/1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant in the year 1981 deposited a sum of Rs. 7,345/- for one MIG house in Triple Storey Complex. THE cost of the house was indicated at Rs. 73,250/-. THE appellant by letter dated 6.3.1994 had reserved a house and the payment schedule was also sent. In the payment schedule the rate of interest was increased to 20% per annum. In this situation the complainant applied for refund of the amount deposited. The opposite party in the written version has alleged that the reservation letter was issued in favour of the complainant. Hence he can take back the amount after usual deductions and he is not entitled to get any interest.

Learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, held that the Ghaziabad Development Authority kept the money for sufficient time. Hence it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. It also awarded Rs. 500/- as cost. The compliance of the order was to be made within two months, failing which the interest was to be paid at 21% per annum.

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. Notice was issued to the opposite party by registered post in the month of March, 2000 but opposite party did not appear on the date fixed. The registered letter was not received back unserved and hence the service on the party is deemed sufficient.

THE complainant had applied for refund of the amount as the interest was increased by Ghaziabad Development Authority to 20% per annum as per reservation letter. When the interest rate was given at a lower rate and the same is increased by Ghaziabad Development Authority, then the complainant has a right to ask for the refund of the amount as the cost of the property will go up. Moreover the Ghaziabad Development Authority should have refunded the amount immediately, but it kept the amount with it for a sufficiently long time. On these facts the order of the learned District Forum is correct as there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. However, the interest at the rate of 21% per annum could not have been awarded by the learned District Forum. The National Commission in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC), has held that the rate of interest that should be allowed to the complainant should be the same which the Authority recovers from allottees on default on the amounts payable to it. Thus 18% interest which was awarded was upheld.

HON''ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kaur v. Government 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 Lata Construction Company & Ors. v. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors., III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 77=1999 (9) Supreme 534, has also upheld the interest of 18% in the case of a builder.

IN view of the above discussions, the rate of interest awarded at the rate of 21% per annum is reduced to 18% per annum. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed in part. Order The appeal is partly allowed and the rate of interest is reduced to 18% per annum. With this modification the rest of the judgment 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 partly allowed.