Kanpur Development Authority vs Ram Chandra

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ''Act'') against judgment and order dated 16.7.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 215 of 1997.

THE facts of the case in brief are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 4.3.1991 for an H.I.G. House in Barra/Ratan Lal Nagar Scheme. In the draw of lottery the complainant was successful and accordingly House No. 09 H.I.G. category was allotted to him. THE complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 84,000/- on 16.1.1992. Later, subsequent instalments were deposited and thus a total sum of Rs. 2,68,000/- was deposited. THE opposite party entered into an agreement in which the cost of the house was indicated as Rs. 4,36,000/-. On 25.11.192 a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and on 8.6.1993 a further sum of Rs. 45,000/- were deposited thus the deposited amount was Rs. 3,75,000/-. THEre were shortcomings in the house. THE complainant filed the complaint for refund of deposited amount along with 18% per annum interest. In the written statement the opposite party averred that the complainant was asked to deposit one-fourth of cost within 30 days and the rest of the cost was to be deposited with 15% per annum interest. The complainant had deposited Rs. 3,75,000/- upto 8.6.1993 and the balance amount of Rs. 60,945/- was not deposited even upto 5.11.1999. This way the complainant shall have to pay interest on Rs. 60,000/- from 8.6.1993 to 6.11.1999 @ 18% per annum as also the lease rent of Rs. 12,300/-. Possession and Registry of the property can be done only after payment of the entire amount.

The learned District Forum after perusing the evidence on record and hearing the submissions of the parties passed the impugned order.

AGGRIEVED the opposite party, Kanpur Development Authority has come in appeal. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Arvind Kumar and learned Counsel for respondent, Mr. O.P. Duvel. We have also perused the entire record.

ONE and the only ground on which this appeal mainly has been pressed is that there was no deficiency in service as the respondent himself failed to deposit scheduled instalments for purchase of the house and as such it was not open for the complainant to deny liability to pay the balance amount along with penal interest and in this background it was submitted that learned District Forum''s order suffers from illegality. Obviously we are not impressed with this argument. In the instant case all the due money as per instalments was paid and that part of the payment of interest from 8.6.1993 to 6.11.1999 was not paid house worth living after carrying out the required repairs and maintenance was not made available and even possession was not delivered and registration was not done, nor there was execution of the deed. The question of penal interest comes only when there is a voluntary default from the allottee. In the instant case the facts are that in spite of deposit of money, the appellant neither handed over the possession nor even the registration was done after execution of the lease deed and the house worth living was not offered. There were a number of defects in the house. Conclusive and effective evidence could not be led from the side of the appellant that the allotted house was in perfect living condition and all constructions were made. Thus we have no hesitation in upholding the order, as obviously deficiency was committed by the appellant. There is no need to interfere in the judgment. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.