GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Yogesh Chandra Gupta

IN these Revision Petitions respondent was allotted House No. H.489 in Anukampa HIG Self Financing Scheme at Ghaziabad by the petitioner. As the possession of the house was not handed over, Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ghaziabad, by filing Case No. 448 of 1994. The District Forum by its order dated 26.2.1998 directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the developed house and to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 17.12.1993 till the date of delivery of possession, on the deposit made by the Complainant. And, in case of non-compliance of the order, penal interest at 21%. Petitioner was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

PETITIONER preferred an appeal No. 802/SC/1998 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Complainant has also preferred an appeal No. 943/SC/1998 contending that Complainant was entitled to grant of interest from May, 1991 till December, 1993 on the deposited amount and from 1994 onwards till the delivery of the possession.

By Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1999, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the Complainant and directed that the petitioner shall pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. in the form of loss from 24th April, 1991 to 16th February, 1993, in addition to the claim decreed by the District Forum, with a further cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

IN view of the aforesaid order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Against that order petitioner has filed these Revision Petitions. The said Revision Petitions were decided by this Commission on 15th March, 2002. That order was set aside by the Supreme Court by order dated 7.2.2002, holding that by order 22nd September, 1999 the State Commission held that interest at the rate of 18% was payable from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993, but, the order passed by the National Commission proceeded on the basis that the State Commission has not directed payment of any interest for the said period and this was error apparent on the face of the order. Hence, the matters were remitted to this Commission for deciding them on merits.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, GDA submitted before us that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the GDA and grant of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the facts of the case is unjustifiable and unreasonable. For this purpose, he referred to the fact that the Complainant paid the last instalment on 23rd March, 1991, and has paid in all Rs. 1,78,085/-. It is contended that (i) the development of Anukampa Scheme was adversely affected from 24th April, 1991 to 16th December, 1993 due to stay order granted by the Allahabad High Court; (ii) the possession of the house in question could not be handed over immediately after vacation of the stay on 16th December, 1993, because development work like laying sewerage lines, construction of roads, providing other infrastructural facilities in the huge area of Govindpuram took some time. Thereafter, the GDA offered possession of the house, and the Complainant, in fact, took possession on 22nd May, 1996. Further, it has been pointed out that in a similar case, this Commission held that no interest or damages for delayed possession is to be paid to an allottee of Govindpuram Scheme when possession was offered in the year 1996. That decision was upheld by the Apex Court in G.D.A. v. Sanchar Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad, II (1996) CPJ 15 (SC)=(1996) 9 SCC 314, wherein the Court observed that the National Commission has made no mistake in refusing interest or damages for delayed possession of the plots to the members of the Complainant. The Court held that the lands in question were subject matter of land acquisition proceedings and because of the interim orders obtained by the land owners/claimants the Authority was unable to finalise the acquisition proceedings and obtained possession thereof. It has also been pointed out that the Complainant had paid only Rs. 1,75,000/-. If interest as awarded by the State Commission is upheld, the GDA will have to pay Rs. 1,65,540/- towards payment of interest alone, even though the Complainant paid the last instalment on 23rd March, 1991.

IN any case, it is contended that in the alternative, if at all, interest is to be given, it cannot be for more than one-and-half years and that too, it should not exceed 9% p.a. in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt) & Ors. v. New INdia Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., I (2001) SLT 300=I (2001) ACC 151 (SC)=(2001) 2 SCC 9.

LASTLY, it is contended that in such cases, there is no question of grant of interest because the GDA has been constituted under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 for the planned development of township. It provides houses/flats/plots to the public at reasonable cost without making any profit. Therefore, this is not a case for deficiency in service and granting of interest as compensation. In G.D.A. v. Sanchar Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad (supra), with regard to the Scheme in Govindpuram, Ghaziabad, the Apex Court has approved the decision rendered by this Commission by holding: "We are of the opinion that the National Commission has made no mistake in refusing interest or damages for delayed possession of the plots to the members of the complainant. During the course of arguments it was brought to our notice that the lands in question were the subject-matter of land acquisition proceedings and because of the interim orders obtained by the landowners/claimants the Authority was unable to finalise the acquisition proceedings and obtained possession thereof. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the claimants produced in Court a xerox copy of the letter dated 19-2-1996 addressed to the individual plot-holders. It is signed by the Joint Secretary, Ghaziabad Vikas Pradhikaran, Ghaziabad and taken on record. We have perused the said letter and Mr Rana, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Authority assured the Court that every necessary step will be taken by the Authority to hand over the possession of the plots to the applicants who have been allotted the plots under the present scheme. We hope the Authority will do the needful in terms of the letter dated 19.2.1996."

It is apparent that on the basis of the aforesaid statement before the Supreme Court possession was offered to the Complainant in the present case and the Complainant has taken the same on 22nd May, 1996.

FURTHER, it has been rightly pointed out that possession of the land proposed for Govindpuram housing scheme was obtained under the process of acquisition in the year 1998/99. Thereafter, land owners and others objected to it and obtained stay orders from the High Court. Because of the stay orders passed by the High Court and pending various proceedings including the contempt proceedings, development works, such as water supply, sewage system, electricity arrangement, roads, etc. could not be completed. Finally, in the case of G.D.A. v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65, dealing with the similar facts, the Apex Court deprecated grant of interest at the flat rate of 18% p.a., irrespective of facts of each case. The Court, after referring to earlier decisions, particularly, Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243, has held that- (a) compensation has to be worked out after looking into facts of each case, after determining the amount of harassment, loss which had been caused to the consumer; (b) awarding of interest at a flat rate of 18% p.a. irrespective of the facts of each case was unsustainable; (c) award of compensation must be under separate head and must vary from case to case depending on facts of each case; (d) Consumer Forums could grant damage/compensation for mental agony/harassment where it finds misfeasance in public office, and such compensation is the recompense for the loss or injury and it, necessarily, has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and must co-relate with the loss or injury; (e) The Forum has to determine that there is deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury; (f) the law is that the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office, i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen; (g) The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss; (h) The liability for mental agony had been fixed not within the realms of contract but under the principles of administrative law; (i) The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enables a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him; (j) compensation is for vindicating the strength of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Matters which require immediate attention should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation.

FURTHER, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that G.D.A. has been constituted under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, for planned development of township and it provides houses/flats/plots to the public at reasonable cost without making any profit. In our view, in such cases, if the Authority has acted arbitrarily, or there is negligence in exercise of or non-exercising of power, then the Forum can award damages or interest having component of compensation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that in the present case if interest as awarded by the State Commission is granted virtually it would amount that the Complainant would be getting the premises free of cost. It is submitted that the Complainant has paid in all Rs. 1,75,000/- and the interest thereon would come to Rs. 1,65,540/-. Considering all these, in our view, the District Forum rightly refused to grant interest for the period during which the Court has granted stay order, as the said stay order has affected speedy progress in carrying out various activities by the G.D.A. However, the order passed by the District Forum awarding interest from 17th December, 1993 does not call for any interference at this stage, mainly because in a number of such cases the amount is already paid, and, secondly, it has been pointed out by the Complainant who is appearing in person that from December, 1993 the officers remained totally inactive in discharge of their duties.

IN the result, the Revision Petitions filed by the G.D.A. are partly allowed. The order of the District Forum is restored and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision disposed of.