GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUNESH KUMARI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.1.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 1674 of 1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant alongwith one another lady applied for a M.I.G. House in Govindpuram Housing Scheme Anukampa. She had deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards registration cost. THE estimated cost of the house was Rs. 1,75,000/-. Rest of the amount was to be deposited in nine years time. By letter dated 8.11.1989, the reservation letter was issued and payment schedule was also sent. It was indicated that if the possession is not taken within stipulated time then the Ghaziabad Development Authority shall also charge the security amount. THE complainant had deposited the four instalments, after which she was to get the possession of the house. By letter dated 22.10.1992 the complainant was informed that the house was been changed and the cost of the house was increased by Rs. 43,600/-. THE lease rent of Rs. 5,711/- was also demanded. THE complainant deposited Rs. 33,151/- under protest and Rs. 746/- as interest. She got the possession of the house on 28.1.1994. THE complainant has prayed for interest on the amount deposited by her as the possession of the house was not given within the time. She also prayed for refund of the enhanced cost of the house alongwith Rs. 2,000/- per month as damages. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the house which was allotted to her was allotted to somebody else. The complainant had not taken possession of the house on 28.1.1994 after satisfying herself. Now she has no jurisdiction to file the complaint and the Ghaziabad Development Authority is not guilty of deficiency in service.

It is also alleged that there was a stay order of Hon''ble High Court from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993 hence the possession of the house could not be delivered.

THE learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant shall get interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 18% per annum till 28.1.1994. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- as damages and cost was also awarded. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no deficiency in service on its part because on account of the stay order of the Hon''ble High Court the possession of the house could not be delivered. This plea of the appellant cannot be accepted because in a number of cases this Commission has already held when the stay order granted by the Hon''ble High Court, was to be operative only if the construction of the houses had not been started. In the present case, before the grant of the stay order the construction work was started, therefore, the stay order does not apply to this construction. The plea of Ghaziabad Development Authority that there was delay in handing over of the possession of the house on account of this fact cannot be accepted. It has further been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the interest awarded by the learned District Forum is on the higher side. This argument is also not sound in view of the various decisions of the Hon''ble National Commission and Hon''ble Supreme Court. 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. 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 Court Cases 534, has also upheld the interest of 18% in case of builder. Thus, we find that the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed with costs.