JITENDRA KUMAR BANSAL vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 2.8.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 104/1994.

IT is not necessary for us to mention the facts in detail. IT will be sufficient to mention that the complainant applied for an MIG house which was allotted to him and he deposited the entire amount. However, he was not given possession of the house within the stipulated time. On behalf of the opposite party it was alleged that on account of stay order by the Hon''ble High Court the possession could not be delivered in time.

The learned District Forum allowed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1st January, 1994 till the date of possession.

AGGRIEVED against this order of the learned District Forum by which interest was awarded from 1st January, 1994 and not from the date of deposit, the present appeal has been filed. None appeared on behalf of the complainant on the date fixed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Ram Raj.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, Ghaziabad Development Authority, has argued that on account of the stay order by the Hon''ble High Court from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993, the interest which has been awarded from 1.1.1994 is correct. In the grounds of appeal the complainant/appellant has alleged that as the Ghaziabad Development Authority could not deliver possession of the completed house within the prescribed time, therefore, the interest should be paid from the date of deposit. LEARNED Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority has argued that on account of stay order, the work of development was affected. This argument of the learned Counsel is not factually correct. In the writ petition which was filed before the Hon''ble High Court, the order passed by the Hon''ble High Court is as under "List this petition on 30.4.1991. Meanwhile respondent shall not raise any constructions on the land in question if constructions have not already commenced. It is an admitted fact that the Ghaziabad Development Authority had started constructions over the land in dispute before the stay I order was passed. Therefore, in terms of this stay i order the construction which has already been j started by the Ghaziabad Development Authority were not affected and the work continued. The stay order only applies to those lands over which the construction has not already commenced. Moreover, there is no plea of the Ghaziabad I Development Authority that the construction has not been started. Therefore, this argument of the learned Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority cannot be accepted. Thus in view of the fact that the stay order did not apply to the houses, the interest should have I been awarded from the respective date or deposit till the date of payment by the District Forum at j the rate of 18% per annum. The appeal is liable to be allowed m part. ORDER The appeal is allowed in part to the extent that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall be payable by the Ghaziabad Development Authority to the complainant/appellant from the date of respective deposit till the date of possession. With this modification, the rest of the order of the learned District Forum is confirmed. The complainant shall also get a cost of Rs. 2,000/- from the opposite party, Ghaziabad Development Authority. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months, from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal partly allowed.