GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs R.P.MITTAL

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.5.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 606 of 1993.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a H.I.G. house in Govindpuram Housing Scheme after depositing a sum of Rs. 21,510/- on 31.10.1988. THE possession of the house was to be delivered within two years. THE complainant also deposited, according to the schedule, a sum of Rs. 2,15,010/-. THE possession of the house has not been delivered so far and the cost of the house has been increased. THE complainant has prayed for interest on the deposited amount till the date of delivery of possession and also prayed for refund of the enhanced cost as well as compensation. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the cost of the house has been increased to Rs. 2,52,000/-. The complainant after depositing Rs. 37,012/- as increased cost and Rs. 7,082/- as lease rent can take the possession of the property after completing all the formalities. The cause of delay in handing over of the possession of the house is beyond the control of the Ghaziabad Development Authority on account of the stay order of the Hon''ble High Court.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed that the possession of the completed house with development and after providing all the amenities be handed over to the complainant within two months from the date of the order and pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 17.12.1993 till the date of possession. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded as account of cost and mental torture.

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 District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant without issuing notice to the complainant for the reason that it will put extra burden on the respondent. The questions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant have been settled by various decisions of this Commission, the Hon''ble National Commission and the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The issuing of notice would have added to the cost of the opposite party and the judgment would be the same even if the complainant is heard.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the possession letter was issued on 3.5.1993 but the possession has not been taken so far. THEre is no evidence on record to show that any possession letter was issued on 3.5.1993. THE complainant was pressing for delivery of the possession of the house. If the letter of possession had been issued on 3.5.1993 then certainly the complainant would have taken the possession of the property. According to the learned Counsel, there was no delay in handing over of the possession of the house on account of the fact thart there was a stay order of the Hon''ble High Court which remained in operation from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993. According to the learned Counsel, the letter of possession was issued on 3.5.1993. If the letter of possession was issued on 3.5.1993, then it is clear that the houses were constructed inspite of the stay order of the Hon''ble High Court. As a matter of fact, the stay order was granted by the Hon''ble High Court was not affective on the houses because the construction work has already been started and the Hon''ble High Court had made an exception that if the construction of the hosue has started then this order will not apply to it. Thus the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum is on the higher side. We do not agree with this argument. 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. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad 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.