MANJU GOEL vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

- THIS is a complaint against the Ghaziabad Development Authority (for short G.D.A.) seeking 18% interest on the amount paid for the allotment of flat from the time the flat was allotted till possession was eventually given, in addition to compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per month during the period of the delay and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. She also claimed that the flat required white washing and repairs.

THE facts of the case as stated by the complainant and not disputed by the opposite party, in brief, are that Smt. Manju Goel, the complainant herein, registered with the G.D.A. for a flat in Sanjaynagar, Ghaziabad, by paying Rs. 38,010/- as first instalment on 8.12.1988. She was informed that a house was reserved for her in Sanjay Nagar Self-Financing Housing Scheme, and was asked to pay four more instalments of Rs. 76,000/- each every six months till 30.12.1990. She duly complied with the same. But, she did not hear anything further from the opposite party till after about 3 years, from the date of reservation when an allotment letter was sent to her allotting flat No. B-34, and asking her to pay a sum of Rs. 61,957/- before taking possession, between 1.11.1991 and 30.11.1991. When she went to see the above mentioned house /flat, to her astonishment she found the premises occupied by someone else. She asked for an explanation from the Ghaziabad Development Authority on this point and also as to how they arrived at the figure of extra payment of Rs. 61,957/ -, but did not get any reply. This was in October, 1991. She persisted to communicate with them through registered letters, evoking no response. Eventually she paid the sum of Rs. 61,957/- on 20th November, 1991, lest allotment to her gets cancelled. Again on 9.12.1991 she wrote saying that legal action will be taken against them if they do not give vacant possession of the house, but without any response or action from the opposite party. A consumer dispute arose from these facts and on 10.1.1992 she decided to approach this Commission for due relief. She has prayed for 18% interest on the total amount deposited by her i.e. Rs. 4,41,957/- from the date of her rightful entitlement over the house No. B-34, Sanjaynagar, i.e. 30th November, 1991 when full payment was made, till vacant possession of the above is given. Also by way of compensation Rs.1,000/- per month from 30.11.1991 till possession, for mental agony and harassment caused to her by the act of the opposite party and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- being the cost of presenting the complaint were also. The reason given for approaching the National Commission, (and not going to the State Commission) is that the present value of the flat is Rs. 12,00,000/- and she has not been delivered vacant possession of the flat till the filing of the complaint so this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was delivered possession of the flat during the pendency of the complaint.

In the reply to the Commission''s Notice, filed on 15.10.1992 the opposite party (G.D.A.) have first given the relevant clauses/features of the scheme floated by them in 1988 in Sanjaynagar as Self-Financing Scheme viz. (i) The houses are expected to be completed within 3 years; (ii) The houses will be sold on "As is where is" basis and no objection on the construction will be entertained. This is also being made clear that no application/request for any alteration or modification in the construction of houses will be entertained. (iii) That the land of house will be given to the allottee on a lease of 90 years and the lease rent shall be payable at the rate of 10% of the total cost of land. (iv) That lease rent is payable in lumpsum before the possession of house is handed over to the allottee, details of which shall be intimated to the allottee at the time of giving possession of houses. Thus it will be seen that it was clearly mentioned that the period of construction was tentative and the lease rent was also payable in advance for the whole period of the leasing in question.

THEY have also mentioned that the squatter Shri Subhash Dhama, who had occupied the house illegally has since vacated and possession of the same has been handed over to the complainant on 31.3.1992. THEY have maintained that a letter dated 25.9.1991 had been issued to the complainant in which the explanation for the sum of Rs. 61,957/- was clearly mentioned i.e. Rs. 10,623/- were on account of lease rent for the full term of lease for 90 years and Rs. 51,334/- were on account of difference of the cost of construction which was finally assessed in respect of the house in question. THEY denied that any repair work or white washing was required at the time of giving possession of the house. They have taken objection to the complaint stating that it was only a contract which cannot be a subject matter under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also that the complainant was not a consumer. But these objections lose their force in view of the recent amendment of the Act in June, 1993.

THEY have objected to the fact that the pecuniary jurisdiction does not fall under the National Commission as the valuation should be above 10 lakhs. We have already given our comments on the same. They harp upon the fact that since delivery of the flat in question has been given, cause of action for the dispute has become redundant. We do not agree with the above argument. The complainant has gone through considerable mental tension, after having paid the full amount as desired by the G.D.A. to find that what she has paid for has been occupied illegally by someone else. And also added to this most undesirable circumstances is the fact that there was no response from the opposite party, after repeatedly asking them for an explanation. And taking the undisputed fact that there was unauthorised occupation of the flat till the latter was finally handed over to the rightful owner on 31.3.1992, it cannot be said that there was no requirement for white-washing and repairs etc., as the complainant had paid for a new house, and it was already used by somebody else for months unknown. Therefore, she, the complainant requires to be compensated for this lapse on the part of the opposite party.

WE, hereby, accept the complaint and direct the opposite party to compensate the complainant with the following reliefs : 18% interest on the total sum deposited i.e. Rs. 4,41,957/- from the date the complainant was entitled to the possession of flat No. B-34 i.e. 30.11.1991 upto the date that the flat actually came into her possession i.e. 31.3.1992. Rs. 15,000/- for repairs and white washing required as the flat was found to be in a bad condition when it was handed over to her. Also for mental tension and suffering Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- by way of costs. The above amounts shall be paid to the complainant within six weeks of the receipt of this order. The complaint is thus disposed of. Complaint allowed.