MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs POONAM JAIN

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 8.4.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 94/1997.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant booked a house in Shatabdi Nagar scheme with the appellant, Meerut Development Authority, and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as registration money on 15.9.1989. He further deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as registration amount. After that the house was reserved for him. THE reservation was done in the year 1990 and instalment letter was issued on 20.2.1991. THEreafter the complainant deposited five instalments as per instalment schedule mentioned above. After that the amount was not deposited by the complainant on account of the fact that there was no development work and the possession which was promised to be given in 1992 was also not handed over. It has further been argued that as the development has not been completed, the amount has to be refunded alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum. On behalf of the Meerut Development Authority it was alleged that the complainant did not deposit the rest of the four instalments and hence has committed default in payment of instalments. The development work has been completed and if the formalities are completed, then the registration of plot can be done in his favour.

Keeping in view these facts the learned District Forum ordered for refund of the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith 15% interest per annum.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the allotment order will go to show that the total cost of the plot was to be deposited in eight instalments starting from 15.2.1991 and ending on 1.8.1994. In Clause 2 it was provided that it was expected that the allottee will be given possession of the plot during 1992. According to learned Counsel for the complainant, no possession letter of the land was issued. This fact has not been contested by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The possession was to be given in 1992 as per instalment letter and by that time only four instalments uptil that time were required to be paid. As these four instalments had already been paid, the possession could have been delivered and the rest instalments would have been paid thereafter. Even after payment of 5th instalment no possession letter could be issued. Thus the complainant was justified in with-holding the payment of the rest of the instalments on account of the fact that development work was not completed and the plot was not in a possession to be constructed upon. Thus the fault lies with the appellant and not with the complainant. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the possession could have been delivered on payment of the entire amount of all the eight instalments cannot be accepted in view of the instalment letter. In view of these facts the order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly right and deserves no interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed. An amount of Rs. 1,000/- is also payable by appellant as cost to the complainant/respondent. The compliance of this order shall be made within two months from today. The judgment has been delivered in the Court in presence of the Counsels. Appeal dismissed.