MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs NIRANKAR SWAROOP MATHUR

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 19.9.1997/24.9.1997 passed by District Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 578/1995. The facts of the case stated in brief are as under.

THE complainant applied for refund of the amount deposited by him for a house with the Meerut Development Authority. According to the respondent he applied in the year 1990 to the Meerut Development Authority for an MIG house in Ganga Nagar Housing Scheme on 9.10.1990. He deposited the reservation money of Rs. 22,000/- on 12.6.1991. House No. H 56 MIG was allotted to the complainant. After the allotment order, he deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000/- which he deposited on 12.12.1991. By letter dated 2.12.1991 the complainant was informed that the estimated cost of the house is Rs. 2,26,000/- and the entire amount should be deposited by 20.11.1991 failing which 18% interest shall be charged. A draft of Rs. 1,69,000/- was sent to the appellant, Meerut Development Authority. In this way the entire money of Rs. 2,26,000/- was deposited. It was also alleged that on cash down, according to the advertisement, 7% rebate shall be given, but the Development Authority did not grant the rebate. When representation was made, it was told that no such advertisement was published. The complainant wanted the possession of the house before he retires. Inspite of repeated requests the house was not completed even in 1995 and there was no provision for electricity, water, sewage etc. at that place. All houses were lying half built. When this fact was intimated to the Development Authority, no heed was paid and no reply was sent. According to the complainant he has purchased another house and hence the amount deposited by him should be refunded.

The case of the opposite party was that the amount of Rs. 2,26,000/- was admitted to have been deposited. It was also alleged that a draft of Rs. 35,000/- was also deposited by the complainant. Rest of the contention of the complainant were denied. There is no provision for return of the amount alongwith 18% interest. It was further been alleged that the development work has not been completed and is under progress.

LEARNED District Forum decreed the claim of the complainant alongwith 15% interest for refund of the entire amount with cost of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the Development Authority, has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard the learned Counsel. The Counsel for appellant has argued that the development work was complete and the complainant did not come forward to take possession of the house. This argument is not sustainable in view of the facts on record. Even the written statement filed by the appellant before the Consumer Forum, copy of which has been placed before us, will go to show that the development work was in progress when this written statement was filed on 25.2.1997. The scheme was floated in the year 1990 and even after 7 years of floating the scheme, the appellant was not in a position to deliver the possession of the house. Thus we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. As the complainant has already invested the amount in acquiring another house, as he required it urgently after his retirement, the complainant could not have waited indefinitely for the house of the appellant. Therefore he made an alternative arrangement when he found that the appellant is unable to deliver the house in the near future on account of non-development of the scheme.

THUS we find that the complainant is not at fault while there is deficiency on behalf of the appellant. The learned District Forum has considered the various aspects of the case and has rightly come to the conclusion that the amount which has been deposited should be returned alongwith 15% interest in the form of loss alongwith the cost. It is a known fact that the Development Authorities charge penal interest when a default is made by the allottee. Hence on the same analogy the appellant is also liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant on the rate fixed by the District Forum. THUS the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the respondent. Let compliance of this order be made within three weeks from today. Appeal dismissed.