GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Rekha Agrawal

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 233/1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant booked one M.I.G. House on 31.10.1988 in Govindpuram Anukampa Housing Scheme. She had deposited a sum of Rs. 17,510/- towards registration cost. By letter dated 10.3.1989, she was informed that a house has been reserved for her. She deposited the reservation amount in May, 1989. THE house was to be completed within two years. By letter dated 29.6.1989 the Ghaziabad Development Authority communicated the complainant that the house has been changed and in place of Hire Purchase Scheme the house has been allotted under the Self Financing Scheme. THE rest amount of Rs. 35,000/- has to be deposited in four instalments. THE complainant protested against it by letter dated 18.9.1989 but to no affect, hence she deposited the instalments by 29.4.1991. Inspite of depositing the entire amounts she has not been able to get the possession of the house. When the complainant was informed to deposit the enhanced price of Rs. 24,400/-and lease rent of Rs. 5,711/-, she visited the site and found that there were many defects in the house and was not worth living. The complainant is residing in a rented house. She has taken loan for depositing the entire cost of the house for which she is paying interest. She prayed for payment of interest, compensation and cost of the proceedings. The opposite party in its written statement has admitted that the cost of Rs. 1,75,000/- was estimated and now the cost has been enhanced to Rs. 1,99,400/-. Thus the Forum cannot adjudicate on the costing of the house. There was some delay in handing over of the possession of the house as some villagers filed writ petition before the Hon''ble High Court and stay order was granted which was effective from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993. According to the Ghaziabad Development Authority, there was no deficiency in service.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority to complete the house after removing the defects within the period of three months and should deliver the possession. Till the delivery of possession, 18% per annum interest should be paid alongwith the cost of Rs. 2,000/-. It also allowed the Ghaziabad Development Authority to adjust any amount which is due from the interest to be paid by it.

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 without issuing notice to the complainant for the reason that she will be put to unnecessary burden by coming to this place because the question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant has been settled by the various decisions of this Commission, the Hon''ble National Commission and the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The issuing of notice will add to the cost of the opposite party and the judgment would be the same even if the complainant is also heard.

IT is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for a house in Govindpuram Anukampa Housing Scheme. According to the learned Counsel, the possession letter was issued on 5.7.1994 but no copy of the possession letter was filed on record to show that it was in fact issued. IT has also not been proved on record that the house was completed at the time of issuing of the possession letter. The complainant has alleged that the house was not complete at the time when the lease rent etc. were demanded from the complainant, therefore, the complainant could not get the possession of the house. IT has further been argued that the enhanced cost was not deposited by the complainant. As a matter of fact, the scheme from the Hire Purchase System was changed to Self Financing Scheme and the allotment was, therefore, modified without the consent of the complainant. The complainant protested against this attitude but Ghaziabad Development Authority kept mum. Thus, in view of the protest made by the complainant, the enhanced cost was not deposited by it, therefore, the learned District Forum has allowed the Ghaziabad Development Authority to adjust the amount from the interest which is payable by it. The learned District Forum has, therefore, done the justice to both the parties. The plea of delaying in handing over of the possession of the house cannot be accepted because in many cases this Commission has held that the stay order never applied to the houses because the order was conditional and before passing the stay order, the construction work had already been started by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Thus, we find that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed. 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.