LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SANJEEV SINGH

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.9.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Lucknow-I in Complaint Case No. 380/1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a MIG house in Viram Khand 5, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as registration money. THEreafter another sum of Rs. 20,000/- was also paid as allotment money. Allotment order dated 20.9.1991 was issued in favour of the complainant for Duplex MIG House No. 5/830. THE estimated price was indicated to be Rs. 2,95,000/- of which the due date of deposits were 30.9.1991 and 30.12.1991. THE complainant deposited these amounts in instalments on 19.10.1991 and 26.12.1991. Thereafter the price of the house was increased by Rs. 81,800/- which was also deposited by the complainant in two instalments on 30.4.1994 and 14.6.1994. According to the complainant in spite of the entire amount having been deposited, the possession has not been delivered as yet. The complainant has, therefore, demanded refund of the amount deposited alongwith interest on the deposited amount and damages besides cost. The complainant has also challenged the increase in the cost of the price and demanded refund of the excess amount paid.

The opposite party contested the case on the ground that the question of costing cannot be agitated which is done after the work is completed and thereafter the allottee is liable to pay the amount. It is further argued that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

AFTER hearing the arguments of both the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the learned District Forum has come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to hand over possession of the house and to pay interest also on the deposited amount. It also allowed penal interest by the appellant to be charged on late deposit of the amount by the complainant. Aggrieved against the order of learned District Forum, Lucknow Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the interest awarded at the rate of 16% per annum is on the higher side and it should be reduced. This question stands concluded by judicial pronouncement of the National Commission in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC); as well as judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Surendra Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., 1998 (9) Supreme Court Cases 592; and Lata Construction Company & Ors. v. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors., III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 77. 18% interest was allowed in these cases. Thus we find that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has allowed 18% interest per annum in case of deficiency in service as damages. Here in the present case the complainant has been awarded interest at the rate of 16% per annum. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disagree with this. On the other hand learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that interest should have been awarded at the rate of 21% per annum because the appellant charges penal interest at the rate of 21% per annum. In the present case also we cannot interfere with the enhancement of the rate of interest because no appeal has been filed by the complainant.

IT is an admitted fact that the entire amount which was demanded by the appellant was deposited by the complainant in time except that in one instalment''s 19 days delay had taken place. The learned District Forum has allowed interest to be charged for delayed payment. Therefore, there was no ground for complaint against this fact by the complainant. The complainant has also been allowed interest as there was deficiency on the part of the appellant in not fulfilling its obligations in delivering possession within the time. A perusal of the file will go to show that the scheme was floated in the year 1990. The possession had to be given within a period of 2/3 years. In the present case the brochure says that the possession will be delivered within three years. No doubt it is a tentative period and a grace period of six months can be allowed to the appellant, but that period cannot be extended to any length of time. There must be a definite period within which the Lucknow Development Authority has to deliver the possession. The last instalment, as has been found in the earlier part of the judgment, was deposited by the complainant on 26.12.1991. The complainant should have got the possession by the year 1993, within two years from the date of payment of last instalment. In the present case the possession has not been delivered so far in spite of the fact that a reasonable period has already expired. Thus the deficiency of service in not delivering possession in time is proved by evidence on record and the material placed before the learned District Forum. The learned District Forum had allowed delivery of the possession of the house on or before 31.12.1996. The possession was delivered during the pendency of appeal on 16.10.1997 as intimated by the learned Counsel for the parties during the course of arguments. Thus we find that after deposit of the last instalment the possession has been delivered with about 5 years, delay. Thus we find that the complainant is liable to be compensated for this delay in delivering the possession because the money which was deposited by the complainant was utilised by the appellant for its own purpose. Thus we find that the grant of interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the deposited amount as ordered by the learned District Forum is not at all unjustified. We uphold the decision of the learned District Forum on the rate of interest as well as the date from which this interest is payable. Thus we find that the complainant has proved that there was deficiency on behalf of the appellant in not delivering possession of the house within a reasonable time and hence the complainant has been awarded damages by the learned District Forum. Hence 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 cost of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid by the appellant. No order as to the costs. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.