LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs ASHWANI KUMAR SEHGAL

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.11.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 167/1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as registration amount in September,1990. This amount was deposited for a house in Viram Khand V, Gomti Nagar Housing Scheme. THEreafter the complainant deposited another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as allotment money. THE complainant was allotted house No. 5/715 in Viram Khand V. At the time of allotment, the approximate cost of the house was indicated as Rs. 1,50,000/-. THE complainant deposited the amount in due course of time. By letter dated 21.1.1994, Lucknow Development Authority intimated the final costing of the house at Rs. 1,90,500/-, thus enhancing the cost by Rs. 40,500/-. THE complainant deposited this amount also, but he has not been given possession so far. THE complainant has prayed that the enhanced cost be not realised from him and be struck off. THE complainant has also prayed for damages and interest on the amount deposited by him. He has also prayed that the possession of the house be directed to be given to him at the earliest. The opposite party admitted allotment of the house and deposit of the amount. It alleged that the cost of the house has been increased on account of the increased cost of inputs. According to opposite party, the enhanced amount has not been deposited inspite of intimation. Hence the possession could not be delivered and the registration also could not be got done in favour of the complainant.

The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to struck down the enhancement of the cost and directed Lucknow Development Authority to hand over possession of the house within 60 days and after complying with all the formalities within 30 days the possession be got delivered and the registration done. The complainant was also allowed 18% per annum interest on a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from 1.1.1992 and interest at the rate of 18% on Rs. 40,500/- from 15.12.1994 till the possession is delivered to the complainant. A cost of Rs. 500/- was also awarded by the learned District Forum.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the Lucknow Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence in file.

LEARNED Counsel for the parties have intimated that the possession of the house has been delivered on 15.1.1996. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has made a payment of Rs. 50,500/- to the complainant vide order dated 13.10.1997 of the Commission. This amount was paid on 20.11.1998. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that a sum of Rs. 40,500/- which represents the enhanced price of the house should have been deposited by the complainant by 31.5.1994, but the same was deposited by the complainant on 30.11.1994; however, no interest was demanded by the appellant. No doubt it is true that no interest has been charged by the appellant, but it is entitled to charge interest for the late deposit of the amount. However, from the perusal of the record, we find that there is evidence on record to show that this amount has been rightly deposited by 30.11.1994. A copy of advertisement published in ''Rashtriya Sahara'' dated 22nd April, 1994 will go to show that the allottees of Viram Khand V were allowed to deposit the amount of enhanced cost which was due to be deposited in May, 1994 by 30.11.1994 in three instalments. The instalments were to be paid on 31.5.1994, 31.8.1994 and 30.11.1994. It is further mentioned in it that those allottees who deposited the instalments of February be given possession of the house on an undertaking. Thus a perusal of this advertisement will go to show that the enhanced cost of Rs. 40,500/- could have been deposited by the allottee in three instalments, latest by 30.11.1994. Thus we find that the enhanced cost has been deposited by the complainant within the period allowed by the Lucknow Development Authority. It is for this purpose that the Lucknow Development Authority has not charged any interest on the deposited amount of enhanced cost of the house and has not shown any mercy or favour to the complainant by not charging any interest upto 30.11.1994 as argued by the learned Counsel for Lucknow Development Authority. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the interest awarded @ 18% per annum is on the higher side. We do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The interest at the rate of 18% per annum can be safely awarded in case there is a deficiency on the part of Development Authority. In the present case the Lucknow Development Authority has not delivered possession of the house within a reasonable period. In the present case the scheme was floated in the year 1990 and the possession has been delivered in January, 1996, after a lapse of about six years. The possession should have been delivered at the most within three years of the floating of the scheme. The amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been deposited by the complainant in the year 1992. When there was undue delay in handing over possession of the house, there was deficiency on the part of Lucknow Development Authority and the interest has been rightly awarded from 1.1.1992 and on Rs. 40,500/- from 15.12.1994.

IT may be mentioned that Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., 1998 (9) Supreme Court Cases 592, has held that interest shall be payable at the rate of 18% per annum. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of Lata Construction Company & Ors. v. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors., III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 77=(1999) 9 Supreme 534, has also upheld the interest of 18% in case of builder.

NATIONAL Commission in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC), has held the same view that the rate of interest that should be allowed to the complainant should be the same which the Authority recovers from allottees on defaults on the amounts payable to it. Hence 18% interest was awarded. Thus we find that on the basis of above discussions the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are perfectly right and require no interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order

The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of this appeal to the complainant.

THE amount already paid by the Lucknow Development Authority to the complainant by the order of this Commission shall be adjusted in the amount to be paid. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Copy as per rules may be issued to the parties concerned. Appeal dismissed with costs.