GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs V.D.DIMIRI

THIS is an appeal against judgment and order dated 16.12.1998 passed by District Forum, Ghaziabad in the complaint case No. 299/1997.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for allotment of a house under MIG scheme in Indrapuram on instant payment basis. He was told that the approximate price of the house would be Rs. 3,60,000/- out of which he deposited a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as registration amount on 20.6.1996. THE rest amount of Rs. 3,24,000/- was deposited on 9.8.1996, but even then the possession of the house has not been delivered as yet. It was prayed by the complainant that till the date of possession he should be awarded interest. He should also be paid rebate of Rs. 3,600/-. He has also claimed a sum Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. The opposite party in his written version has admitted the deposit of the amount for taking the house. The learned District Forum, after considering the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the possession letter has not been issued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and the complainant is entitled to get interest from 1.9.1996 till the date of possession. The interest awarded was 18% per annum. He was also allowed rebate of Rs. 3,600/-. Further a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was allowed as cost. The possession was to be delivered within a period of two months. It was further mentioned that if the order is not complied with within the time allowed, then interest shall be payable at the rate of 21% per annum.

Aggrieved against this order, Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the interest at the rate of 18% could not have been awarded as it is very much on the higher side. In the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC), it was held by the National Commission as under : "The Authority had utilised the amount of the complainants all these years whereas the complainants had been wrongly deprived of the use of the amount which was deposited by them with the Authority. If the complainants have to find out a similar premises, they have to pay a very high price, the complainants have to be compensated for the loss suffered by them on account of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Authority. The negligence on the part of the Authority is very apparent inasmuch as after collecting the required consideration, it neglected the construction of the flats. In our opinion it will meet the ends of justice if the complainants are awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum by way of compensation on the amount which the Authority is required to refund."

Thus in view of the above observations of the National Commission the interest which has been awarded at the rate of 18% cannot be said to be excessive.

IT is further argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the possession could not be delivered on account of the fact that the house in the block was actually not constructed by the appellant and all those allottees were given an opportunity to take flats in another block as per the terms of the brochure. IT is further argued that the appellants had informed the Court about the current status of the house and intimated that the possession of the houses may be given in one year, i.e. in September, 1999. Thus the facts on record goes to show that the houses which were intended to be allotted to the complainant were under the construction and instead of that the complainant was offered another house in another block which resulted in delay in delivery of the possession of the house. The complainant cannot be blamed for non- allotment of the house because he was not at fault. The fault lies with Ghaziabad Development Authority who failed to construct the houses according to brochure and hand over the possession of the house to the allottees. It is further argued that by letter dated 9.6.1999 the appellant had informed the complainant to deposit the cost of the house and lease rent charges till 30.6.1999. A notice was again given on 1st July, 1999 to complete all the formalities so that possession could be given. The complainant was also to pay Chokidarana charges. Thus we find that the appellant had themselves delayed handing over the possession. The appellant has paid a sum of Rs. 98,940/- to the complainant as interest on the deposited amount during the course of pending proceedings. The appellant could not prove that the possession was delivered within the period indicated by it. Therefore, the appellant was bound to pay interest as awarded by the learned District Forum. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant did not pay the lease rent, etc. in view of the letter dated 9.6.1999 and subsequent reminders. Thus we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned District Forum. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost to be paid within a period of two months from today by the appellant to the complainant/respondent. A sum of Rs. 98,940/- has been paid as interest to the complainant, this amount shall be deducted from the entire amount which becomes due against the appellant. Let the compliance be made within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.