GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs TARA CHANDRA

THIS is an appeal against order of District Forum Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 616 of 1993 by which it has directed the appellant Ghaziabad Development Authority (G.D.A. for short) to pay interest to the complainant respondent on the amount deposited by the complainant for obtaining a house in the Govindpuram Scheme @ 15% per annum from different dates.

THE case of the complainant was that attracted by a "Brochure" of the complainant he sought registration for allotment of a house which was made in his favour on 28.2.1989 in Akaansha II Govindpuram at Ghaziabad. According to the Brochure, possession over the completed house was likely to be given in about 2 years'' time. THE complainant found that the house had not been constructed nor had the area been properly developed and there was considerable delay in doing so. THE G.D.A. asked for some additional price in excess of the amount mentioned in the Brochure which was also paid alongwith the amount of the lease rent on 28 May, 1993. Yet, possession was not delivered to him and he had to file the complaint. The G.D.A. put forward the plea, inter alia, that the time indicated in the Brochure was by approximation and so was the price, which could be realised above the price mentioned in the Brochure when the final costing was done. It was also pleaded that the delay in the construction of the house was for various reasons beyond its control like inaction on the part of the contractor to whom the work was entrusted. The G.D.A. pleaded that the complainant was not entitled to any interest on the amount deposited by him.

The District Forum went into the matter in the light of the pleadings of the parties and having regard to the material actually brought before it by way of evidence and concluded that there was no justification for the delay in the completion of the house and delivery of its possession to the complainant. As such, it directed the G.D.A. to complete the house in all respects and hand over possession within the time indicated and till such time that possession was actually delivered to the complainant the GDA was also directed to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant.

VARIOUS grounds have been raised in the memo of appeal but the emphasis on behalf of the GDA before us is on the fact that the expected time of completion and delivery of possession of a house as given out in the brochure is by approximation and that delivery of possession beyond the expected time as indicated in the brochure did not entitle a complainant to payment of interest on the amount deposited by him. We have noticed earlier that on the material brought on the record before it the District Forum has recorded a finding that the delay in completion of the house and delivery of its pos session to the complainant had not been satisfactorily explained by the GDA. On this finding it is not possible to accept the plea raised on behalf of the GDA in this appeal. There is no indication in the memo of appeal as to what was the actual reason for the delay except for the general statement mentioned at point No. 6 that at times due to unavoidable circumstances the development work gets delayed. This ground, we are afraid, does not squarely challenge the findings re corded by the District Forum.

ANOTHER submission made on behalf of the GDA is that there is no justification for the District Forum in awarding interest from 1 April, 1991 which was a cut off date arbitrarily fixed by the District Forum. In the circumstances of the present case, we agree with the finding of the District Forum that the GDA had failed to establish any justification for not being able to hand over possession for two years from the date of registration which was made in November, 1989. The decision to award interest with effect from 1.4.1991 due to the failure of the G.D.A. to give possession by 31 March, 1991 cannot be faulted. In conclusion we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it with costs which we assess at Rs. 500/ . Appeal dismissed with costs.