GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs R.U.AHMAD

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.9.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 964 of 1993.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a single storey house in Govindpuram Housing Scheme in Akansha II for HIG house on 19.11.1988. He deposited a sum of Rs. 21,510/-. By letter dated 24.5.1989 a house was reserved by the opposite party costing Rs. 2,15,000/-. THE possession was to be given in a period of two years. Till 30.4.1991 he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,07,510/- but in spite of expiry of two years, the possession has not been delivered in spite of complaint and reminder. Complainant is residing in a house on monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- which he is also entitled to get alongwith 18% interest on the deposited amount. Opposite party has alleged in the written version that the approximate cost of the house was intimated. The house was to be completed by 24th May, 1992 which was mentioned in the reservation letter, but on account of delay caused by the contractor, the house could not be completed. The opposite party is not at fault. It is however stated that now the construction work is complete and all amenities are available. Registered notice dated 25.9.1993 was sent to the complainant for taking possession but he has not taken possession so far.

After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and perusing evidence on record, the learned District Forum held that the fault lies with the Ghaziabad Development Authority in not giving possession within a time bound period and hence it allowed the complaint and interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 1.1.1992 till the date of possession was granted. The other relief of Rs. 1,200/- per month rent was refused. The order was to be complied within two months and the possession was to be delivered as early as possible.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority has argued that the delay in construction of the house was due to the fault of the contractor. It may be mentioned that the contractor was engaged by the Development Authority and he was working at the instance of the Development Authority. If he has committed any default or did not complete the construction within the time, then the responsibility lies on the Development Authority and it cannot be allowed to say that it is not liable to make good loss which has been caused to the complainant.

THIS argument is, therefore, rejected. Hence the delay in handing over possession of the house on account of late construction is a deficiency in service as has been held in the case of LDA v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ page 7 (SC). THIS case law has been considered in a number of cases by this Commission in a bunch of appeals of Ghaziabad Development Authority starting from Appeal No. 1504/SC/95, GDA v. Ramanand and similar appeals decided on 20th November, 1998. Thus we find that there is deficiency in service by not delivering possession of the house in time because it is an admitted fact that the possession was to be delivered within two years as mentioned in the brochure and also admitted in the written statement. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the possession letter was sent to the complainant on 25.9.1993 by registered post. No proof was filed by the Development Authority before the learned District Forum to show that actually this possession letter was sent by registered post and the same was delivered to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the development work was not completed and hence there was no question of taking possession of the house even if the possession letter would have been received by him. Thus we find that the Development Authority has failed to show that it has sent by registered post the letter of possession in September, 1993 as alleged. Thus it is held that the Development Authority has failed to intimate about taking of possession by the complainant. It has further been argued that the last instalment was deposited on 30.4.1991. Hence the interest should not have been awarded by the learned District Forum from 1.1.1992. This contention is correct. Hence on the amount which was deposited on 30.4.1991 the Development Authority shall pay interest from 1.5.1991 till the date of delivery of possession at the same rate of 18% per annum. The order of the learned District Forum shall stand modified accordingly. The learned District Forum instead of granting interest from the date of deposit has fixed a later date of 1.1.1992. The learned District Forum has not committed any error in granting interest in the form of loss from 1.1.1992 on the amount deposited earlier and interest on the amount deposited on 31.3.1991 shall become due from 1.5.1991 till the date of delivery of possession. Thus the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. Order The appeal is allowed in part. Interest on the amount deposited on 30.4.1991 shall be payable by the Ghaziabad Development Authority with effect from 1.5.1991 till the date of possession. Rest of the judgment is confirmed. Let compliance of this order be made within two months from the date of this judgment. Appeal partly allowed.