LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs NIRMAL KUMAR PATUDI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.9.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 325/1999.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant was allotted a house No. 6/86 in Ashish Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar on 8.3.1995. THE complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- in instalments between 31.3.1995 to 31.3.1996. THE opposite party, Lucknow Development Authority, has not completed the construction of the house. THE complainant applied by letter dated 19.8.1997 either to complete the construction or to hand over possession of any of the incomplete house. It was also intimated to the Lucknow Development Authority that the valuation of the unfinished house be got done and the complainant be allotted this house and the cost of unfinished work be refunded to him. THE complainant has further alleged that the Lucknow Development Authority has indicated the cost of the land at Rs. 99,000/- and the cost of unfinished construction at Rs. 67,000/-. A sum of Rs. 180.60 and Rs. 91,004/- as interest has also been added. In this way a sum of Rs. 15,380/- in other items totalling to Rs. 1,82,251.64 was deducted from the deposited amount by the complainant and a sum of Rs. 1,12,748.36 was refunded to the complainant without any interest. THE complainant has prayed for 21% per annum interest, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for demolishing the house and Rs. 60,000/- for escalation of cost of material. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed by him. The learned District Forum on consideration of the entire facts on record came to the conclusion that the interest at the rate of 15% per annum is to be paid by the Lucknow Development Authority on the amount of Rs. 1,12,748.26 which has been refunded to the complainant without any interest. The District Forum has also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost.

Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, Lucknow Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the allotment was done on 8.3.1995. The instalments, according to the learned Counsel, were deposited late as mentioned in the memo of appeal. According to learned Counsel the amount has been refunded on 19.12.1998. The possession of the house has been given on 14.12.1998. It has further been alleged that the house was purchased under self financing scheme. The conditions have not been complied with. It is an admitted fact that the houses were not completed by the Lucknow Development Authority and a semi-finished house was given to the complainant. Now the complainant has prayed for interest. In respect to the argument about the payment of interest, it has been argued by the learned Counsel that the complainant was never charged interest on the late deposit by him. Hence no interest shall be payable by the Lucknow Development Authority in the present case. A charge has been given in the memo of appeal showing the deposits made by the complainant. In the grounds of appeal it is alleged that due to certain unavoidable reasons beyond its control and capacity of the office of appellant, it has not been able to complete the construction. It has not been shown as to what was the reasons beyond the control of the appellant which prevented them from completing the house. The house was under self financing scheme and the construction was to be made from the money supplied by the complainant. No doubt it is correct that the complainant has not paid interest on the delayed instalments. This fact has been shown in the details which have been given in page 3 of the appeal. Thus in not finishing the house in time the Lucknow Development Authority is deficient in service. Therefore, it is liable to pay compensation and damages to the complainant. The learned District Forum has allowed interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 1.1.1995 alongwith payment of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- has also been awarded as cost. The scheme was floated in the year 1995 and till the year 1999 the complainant was not able to obtain possession of the house. It is, therefore, held that there was a deficiency in service in not handing over the possession of the house to the complainant as alleged. Thus the deficiency of service is there on the basis of records. We do not find any lacuna in the judgment of the learned District Forum which shall stand confirmed. Order The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the complainant as cost of this appeal. 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 dismissed.