GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs YASH PAL SINGH CHHABRA

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum.

THE facts in brief are that the complainant had applied for a flat in ''Pratap Vihar Scheme'' and thereafter he was allowed to apply for a change to ''Govind Puram Housing Scheme''. As per the terms of the Govind Puram Scheme he had paid the demanded amount, i.e. Rs. 1,75,000/- and Rs. 20,810/- on account of interest. THE complainant states that the payments of the instalments of the flat had been made fully by September, 1990. On 18.10.1994 he had received a letter from the G.D.A. asking the complainant to deposit Rs. 24,400/- by way of enhancement in the cost of the flat and Rs. 5,711/- by way of lease rent. THE complainant alleges that the construction of the flats was completed in the year 1990 and possession had not been delivered in 1990 itself which had compelled the complainant to pay rent at Rs. 1,500/- per month. He had also taken loan from his office for purchase of the house. Since he could not get the possession of the house till 1994, he had approached the District Forum praying for a direction to the G.D.A. to deliver the possession of the house, to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,000/- that he had spent by way of rent, Rs. 35,000/- which amount had been wrongly charged by the G.D.A. costs, etc. In response to the notice, the opposite party, G.D.A. had filed its written version. It is stated in the reply that the colony had been fully developed; the cost of Rs. 1,75,000/- mentioned earlier was the approximate cost and that it had been increased to Rs. 1,99,400/- and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. THE District Forum upon hearing both the parties directed the opposite party to hand over the possession of the flat within two months from the date of the order after completing all the formalities. THE opposite party was also directed to pay interest at 18% p.a. on the sums of money deposited by the complainant from 1.9.1993 till the date of delivery of possession of the flat. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission by its detailed order upheld the order of the District Forum.

Now, the opposite party is in revision before us. The revision petition was admitted by us subject to payment of interest at 12% and the balance amount of interest at the rate of 6% was stayed.

HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by both the Fora below. Moreover, we have already taken a view in the case of H.U.D.A. v. Darsh Kumar, I (2002) CPJ 35 (NC), Revision Petition No. 1197 of 1998, wherein we have held that the award of rate of interest at 18% covers the escalation in cost of construction, cost of materials, the expenses incurred by the complainant in seeking possession of the flat/plot, for the delay in delivery of the possession of the flat/plot, the interest paid by the complainant on the loan taken in connection with the purchase of the flat/plot from the Development Authority and the rent the complainant paid from the date of reasonable date of delivery till the date of actual possession. In view of the above decision we dismiss the revision petition and direct the petitioner/complainant to pay the remaining balance of the 6% interest payment whereof was stayed by us earlier vide order dated 20th March, 2001. In view of the above discussion the orders of the State Commission is confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.