Madhya Pradesh Housing Board And Anr. vs G.S. Daheria

THIS revision petition has been filed with a delay of 15 days, which is condoned.

THE factual matrix of the case in brief is that the complainant got an agreement registered on 26.2.2003 for the purchase of a house being constructed by the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (hereinafter be referred as the "Housing Board") and the cost of the construction of the house was fixed at Rs. 3,79,100. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 4,18,754 and the final instalment was paid on 30.9.2003. As per the terms of the agreements, the possession of the house was to be handed over on deposit of final instalment. This was not done and the Housing Board handed over the possession of the house to the complainant only on 5.5.2006. After receiving the possession the complainant demanded interest for the belated handing over the possession of the house. Subsequently, the complainant demanded interest by issuing legal notice on 7.3.2008, but there was no response. Therefore, he filed a complaint on 9.6.2008, seeking interest @ 18% per annum equivalent of Rs. 1,94,720 from the date of depositing the final instalment (30.9.2003) to the date of receipt of possession (5.5.2006) along with cost.

THIS was contested by the Housing Board stating that the complainant deposited the required amount as stipulated, electricity could not be supplied due to non -cooperation of the Electricity Board which did not supply electricity, though, the house was ready. Hence Housing Board is not liable to pay interest. It is also evident that the complainant got the electricity connection at his own expense. It was also contended by the Housing Board that the possession of the house was given on 5.5.2006 and the complaint was filed on 9.6.2008 i.e. after a delay of 35 days after the stipulated period of two years. This was contested by the complainant stating that he has been demanding interest orally and meeting the Housing Board personnel for which there has been no response. Further, he has produced the documents dated 7.3.2003, on which date the complainant had issued legal notice to the respondent. Therefore, the District Forum held that filing of the complaint was within time. Accordingly, the District Forum condoned the delay and directed that the Housing Board shall pay simple interest on Rs. 4,18,754 @ 16% per annum from 1.10.2003 till 5.5.2006 within 30 days, along with Rs. 500 as cost and Rs. 500 as compensation for mental torture. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Housing Board filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission observed that the main grievance urged before the State Commission was against the order of the District Forum that they have granted exemption for 35 days for filing the complaint. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant Housing Board that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it was barred by limitation as there was a delay of 35 days in filing the complaint. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the delay in handing over the possession was due to the fact that the State Electricity Board did not supply electricity and it was beyond the control of the Housing Board. Further, the District Forum has admitted the complaint though there was a delay of 35 days in filing the complaint. Lastly, the interest @ 16% per annum awarded by the District Forum is excessive.

IT is crystal clear from the documents that there was abnormal delay in handing over the possession to the complainant, even after he has paid the amount as stipulated in the agreement executed by the Housing Board. It is the responsibility of the Housing Board to secure cooperation from the Electricity Board and water supply authorities to ensure water and electricity are provided to the buyers of the houses. They cannot indulge in blame game with the sister department which functions under the same Madhya Pradesh Government. The District Forum has only condoned the delay of 35 days. We cannot disbelieve that the consumer had approached the Housing Board personally and making oral request for payment of interest for the belated possession. Further, it is also on record that the consumer has issued a legal notice to the Housing Board. The Housing Board did not have the courtesy to acknowledge the receipt of the legal notice, hence, he was compelled to file a complaint. By any stretch of imagination, 35 days delay cannot be construed as an abnormal delay and the District Forum was right in condoning this nominal delay. In this case, the District Forum had awarded a token cost of Rs. 500 and a token compensation of Rs. 500 apart from the simple interest @ 16% per annum.

THE Hon''ble Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65=2004 (2) GJX 0983 (SC) has observed as follows: "The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Matters which require immediate attention should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non -exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation. If the Commission/Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct the authority to pay compensation and then also direct recovery from those found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour."

FURTHER , the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65=2004 (2) GJX 0983 (SC), has held as under: "That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way, that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned, then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/ plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot."

THE ratio of the above quoted judgments is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum and as confirmed by the State Commission is on the higher side. Complainant has not been deprived of the house but he was belatedly given the possession. Therefore, we deem it in the interest of justice the rate of interest has to be reduced from 16% per annum to 12% per annum from 1.10.2003 to till 5.5.2006. The token cost and compensation awarded by the District Forum are left undisturbed. The amount shall be paid within sixty days from the date of pronouncement of this order. If not paid within the stipulated period, then the petitioner shall pay 16% interest per annum. There shall be no further order as to cost. R.P. disposed of.