MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs KAMLESH GAUTAM

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ''Act'') against the judgment and order dated 17.10.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 140 of 1997.

THE facts of the case are that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for registration of a plot in the Shatabdi Nagar Scheme on 26.8.1989. Vide letter dated 26.10.1989 complainant was informed by the opposite party that a plot has been reserved for him and on 16.11.1989 the complainant deposited Rs. 25,000/- as allotment amount on 16.11.1989. Complainant received letter dated 9.11.1990 in which it was indicated that a 250 sq. mt. plot has been allotted to the complainant in Section 5 of the Scheme, the cost of which was indicated as Rs. 1,12,500/-. THE complainant deposited the entire amount. In the letter sent on 9.9.1990 it was indicated that the possession shall be given in the year 1992. THE allegation is that in spite of depositing the entire cost, possession has not been handed over. On inspection of the land, it was known that no development work has been done. When the complainant requested for refund of the deposited amount, it was indicated that 20% deductions shall be made as per the rules. Hence complaint has been filed. The opposite party in the written statement alleged that the complainant has not deposited the instalments in time and instalments paid were delayed payment. It was also stated that the period for handing over possession was only tentative and no promise has been made to this effect.

The District Forum, after perusing the evidence on record and hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, passed the impugned judgment and order.

AGGRIEVED the opposite party has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, Mr. B.P. Dubey for appellant and Mr. T.H. Naqvi, Advocate for respondent.

THE only point involved in the present case is as to what would be the rate of interest. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the award of interest @ 15% per annum is very much on the higher side, whereas Mr. Naqvi tried to justify the order of the learned District Forum. In this connection it was argued by Mr. Naqvi that in fact the possession of the plot has not been handed over within the schedule time. It was also argued that the plot in question could not be developed in time. In this connection both the Counsel placed reliance on the case law of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, propounded by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. On one hand learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the rate of interest @ 15% per annum is very much on the higher side and should be quashed, on the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the order of the learned District Forum need not be interfered with. In our considered view this is not a hard case where 15% per annum interest is justified. In our view, in the circumstances of the case interest at the rate of 9% shall meet the ends of justice. This shall be payable from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Mr. Dubey states that the entire deposited amount has been refunded whereas Mr. Naqvi states that the same has not been paid.

AFTER perusal of the period, if the amount has already been paid, the complainant shall be entitled to get 9% per annum interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the date of refund. In case it has not been done so far, complainant shall be entitled to get the deposited amount along with 9% per annum interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment. ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The complainant shall be entitled to get 9% per annum interest on the deposited amount. In case deposited amount has not been refunded so far the same shall also be refunded along with 9% per annum interest. In case the payment is not made within two months from the date of producing a copy of this order, the complainant shall be entitled to get 12% per annum interest. There will be no order as to the costs. Appeal partly allowed.