LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SHARAD VERMA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.1.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 335/1993.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant deposited with the Lucknow Development Authority a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 30.9.1983 as registration money. THEreafter house No. 2/214, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar was reserved in his favour. THEreafter the complainant also deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 27.2.1984, Rs. 23,492/- on 25.6.1984 and Rs. 16,508/- on 29.3.1985 as cost of the house. In this way Rs. 90,000/- was deposited by him. THEreafter on the request of the complainant, house No. C-2/261, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar was allotted in place of old house No. 2/214, Vishwas Khand by letter dated 9.7.1986. As house No. C-2/261, Vishwas Khand was previously allotted to some other person, another house No. CH-1/152, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar was allotted to the complainant vide letter dated 29.6.1991. This house was not complete at the time of allotment. Hence refund order of Rs. 7,074/- was prepared in favour of the complainant. A sum of Rs. 3,600/- was also recovered from the complainant. THE possession of the house was given on 27.6.1992. The complainant has alleged that the transfer charges were wrongly charged from him. Hence this amount is to be refunded to the complainant. The complainant has spent about Rs. 15,000/- for repairing of the house while he has been given a sum of Rs. 7,074/- only. Hence he is entitled for further amount of Rs. 8,000/-. The complainant has also damanded damages of Rs. 15,000/- and interest on the deposited amount as the possession of the house was delivered late which amounted to deficiency in service.

The opposite party in the written version has alleged that the house was changed at the request of the complainant and hence transfer charges were recovered from the complainant which he is not entitled to get back. Similarly the complainant is also not entitled to get the amount of Rs. 8,000/- as alleged by him. It has further been alleged that the complainant is not entitled to get any money as damages as there was no deficiency on the part of Lucknow Development Authority.

THE learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove that he has spent Rs. 15,000/- on repairing of the house. It has further been held that the complainant is not entitled to any refund of the transfer charges as the house was changed at his own request. It, therefore, decreed the claim of the complainant for recovery of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 90,000/- with effect from 1.4.1985 till 27.6.1992. THE compliance of the order was to be made within 60 days failing which the complainant was entitled to get 18% per annum interest on the total amount of interest. A sum of Rs. 500/- was also granted 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 District Consumer Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the appellant as well as respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that this case has been filed after taking possession of the house. Hence the complainant ceases to be a consumer. This argument cannot be accepted as it is a well-settled law that if there is deficiency in service, then the complainant can claim damages within the period of limitation. This complaint was filed within the period of limitation and hence this argument is rejected. Learned Counsel has argued that the last instalment was deposited on 29.3.1985. According to learned Counsel some work was to be done when the house No. CH-1/152, Vishwas Khand was allotted to the complainant on 29.6.1991, but the facts on record go to show that the possession of the property was delivered by Lucknow Development Authority to the complainant on 26.7.1992, after a lapse of one year. Why this delay of one year occurred has not been explained by the Lucknow Development Authority. When the house has been allotted and the same was ready, its possession should have been immediately handed over. Even after handing over possession of the house, defects were there that a sum of Rs. 7,074/- was refunded to the complainant on account of repairs which the Lucknow Development Authority thought it necessary to be spent on the repairs of the house. We find that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Lucknow Development Authority on this aspect.

ABOUT the period of interest from which it has been awarded, by the learned District Forum and the rate of interest, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the rate of interest is very much on the higher side and the interest should not have been awarded at all or should have been awarded from October, 1986 onwards, as another house at the request of the complainant was allotted to him.

AS regards interest it will be suffice to say that there are decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum against the Development Authorities can be awarded. Moreover, in the present case the facts on record go to show that the complainant was allotted house No. 2/261, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow knowing fully well that the same house stands allotted to some other person. Thereafter another house was allotted after a period of five years. Lucknow Development Authority has not been able to explain this delay of five years which prevented it from allotting another house in place of the house which was allotted to some other person. Even after the allotment of this house, one full year was taken for handing over possession of the house which was even not in satisfactory condition and a sum of Rs. 7,074/- was refunded on account of defective construction. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get interest from the date of the deposit on which he had made and not from the date on which he had request for change of the house. Had the house been allotted to him immediately on the requested of the complainant and possession handed over, then this plea of the appellant would have been a valid defence. The learned District Forum allowed interest with effect from 1.4.1985 till the date of possession, i.e. 27.6.1992. The last deposit was made on 29.3.1985. Therefore, the learned District Forum was perfectly justified in awarding interest at the rate of 18% per annum and that too from 1.4.1985. A perusal of the judgment goes to show that 18% per annum interest has been allowed on interest amount if it is not paid within a period of 60 days from the date of the judgment. A perusal of the order dated 29.9.1997 passed by this Commission will make it clear that the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- through bank draft to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be deposited in the District Forum in the form of FDR. The sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been paid to the complainant as argued at the time of arguments. It is not clear as to whether the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been deposited by the Lucknow Development Authority before the District Forum or not. If this amount has been deposited by the appellant per order by the State Commission, then no interest shall be paid on this amount by the appellant after the date of deposit. The interest on the amount which is due to the complainant shall be paid till the date of deposit. The interest on the amount already paid to the complainant vide order dated 29.9.1997 shall cease from the date of payment which is informed to be 6.11.1997. The learned District Forum in execution proceedings will take account of all these facts. This appeal has no force and 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. Let compliance of this 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 with costs.