MAN MOHAN SHARMA vs GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THESE are two cross revision petitions against the common order of 14th September, 1993 of the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh in Appeals No. 24-SC/93 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Man Mohan Sharma and Appeal No. 1518-SC/92Man Mohan Sharma v. Ghaziabad Development Authority. For disposal of these revision petitions, we will describe the original complainant before District Forum Shri Man Mohan Sharma as the petitioner and the original Opposite Party before the District Forum viz. Ghaziabad Development Authority as the respondent.

THE petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 65,000/- in 1988 for the allotment of a MIG flat in double storeyed blocks. He was duly registered for allotment of a flat under the scheme. Subsequently in exercise of its powers under the scheme, the GDA amended the terms and conditions of the scheme in public interest and built three-storeyed houses instead of two-storeyed houses in some blocks/pockets. In consequence, the petitioner in September, 1991 was issued an allotment cum possession letter in respect of a flat in a three-storeyed block on depositing the balance lease money and possession being given on 15.11.92. However, the complainant refused to accept this allotment in a three-storeyed block and asked for the refund of the money deposited by him. He filed a complaint against the respondent GDA in the District Forum at Ghaziabad. The District Forum ordered the following reliefs to be granted to the complainant; (i) The GDA should give a fully constructed flat to the complainant in a two storeyed block of houses and alternatively a house in a three storeyed block if he was willing, along with damages of Rs. 5,000/-. (ii) Interest at 18% on the amount deposited by him viz. Rs. 65,000/- from 1.10.90 to the date of the order viz. 5th December, 1992.

During the proceedings before the District Forum the petitioner agreed to accept the house in a three-storeyed building.

THE parties went up in appeal against District Forum''s order before the State Commission who modified the order of the District from as under. (i) Interest on the sum of Rs. 65,000/- deposited in 1988 was disallowed as not being justified keeping in view the fact that respondent GDA was going to hand over possession of a flat at the original price to the petitioner. (ii) A compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner provided he takes possession of a flat in a three-storeyed blofck. Both the parties have appealed against the order of the State Commission.

THE complainant has prayed for the grant of interest at 18% on the deposit as had been allowed by the District Forum. He has emphasised that the GDA, according to its own regulations charges interest at 18% for any default on the part of the allottees. He has also claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the GDA instead of Rs. 10,000/- allowed by the State Commission.

HE has emphasised that the area of the flat to be provided to him is less than the area agreed upon in the case of a flat in a two storeyed building. Alternatively the GDA should be specifically directed to provide a flat in a double-storeyed building of the agreed area in Sanjay Nagar. The petitioner has emphasised that the State Commission has not allowed him compensation for the harassment and mental agony he has undergone at the hands of the GDA.

THE respondent GDA has challenged the order of the State Commission on the gound that the petitioner has undergone any mental torture or harassment and therefore, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was unjustified. It is submitted that the GDA had the power to amend the terms and conditions of the scheme for allotment of the houses and the amendment would be binding on the applicants/allottees and as such the GDA is not liable to compensate the petitioner for changing the allotment from a fait in a two storeyed building to a flat in a three storeyed building. During the course of the hearing, the petitioner pointed out that the respondent GDA did not comply with the order of the District Forum. In particular, it did not hand over the flat in a three storeyed building. In his letter of 14th May, 1993 to the Secretary, GDA, he had pointed out non-compliance with the other of the District Forum, that he had preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum to the State Commission and that "pending the final decision on the point of compensation/ relief I request you kindly hand over the possession of accommodation immediately to avoid unnecessary burdening of 18% interest on your part which is increasing day by day." In his reminder of 12th April, 1993 to the GDA he again requested that the possession be given to him of the flat in a three storeyed building as per the directions of the District Forum because he was in immediate need of accommodation. This was without prejudice to the decison regarding the quantuam of compensation payable to him by the State Commission.

THE Counsel for the respondent GDA could not explain at the hearing as to what action was taken by the respondent on these communications from the petitioner and why the possession of the flat in a three storeyed building, which he was willing to take, was not given to him. It appeared that the GDA did not want to hand over the possession of the flat unless the petitioner withdraw his appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of compensation.

WE see no reason as to why interest should not be allowed to the petitioner at 18% from the date he had expressed his readiness to accept the flat in a three storeyed building as per the orders of the District Forum. Since GDA charges 18% for delays in payment by the allottees of flats, the GDA should be made liable to pay interest at the same rate for their delay in the delivery of flats to the allottees. After considering the facts and after hearing Counsel, we order as under: (i) The order of the State Commission disallowing interest on the deposit of Rs. 65,000/- allowed by the District Forum is modified to the extent of allowing to the petitioner, interest on Rs. 65,000/- from the date of the petitioner has given his consent for the allotment of a flat in a three storeyed building till the date on which possession of the flat is actually given to the petitioner. (ii) It is evident from the facts that the petitioner has suffered considerable harassment at the hands of the respondent GDA who have not allotted a flat in a three storeyed building even after the petitioner had given his consent to such an allotment. They had also not taken appropriate action on his pleas for such an allotment in his letters of 12th April, 1993 and 14th May, 1993. (iii) Compensation allowed by the State Commission of Rs. 10,000/- is reasonable. (iv) The respondent GDA will pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the petitioner.