MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SANTOSH KUMAR GARG

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order passed on 26.8.1997 by District Consumer Forum, Meerut, in Complaint Case No. 1013 of 1994.

THE facts of the case, stated in brief, are as under : THE complainant during the Trade Fair organised at Delhi in November, 1990 booked one plot measuring 150 sq. mtrs. in Ganga Nagar Phase-II Scheme after depositing a sum of Rs. 7,500/-. On 8.1.1991 the complainant received a letter from the appellant with indication of plot to be allotted in February, 1991 and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was damanded as allotment money which was deposited by the complainant within the stipulated period. THEreafter on 28.1.1991 a letter was sent to the complainant informing him that Plot No. 272 measuring 150 sq. mtrs. has been allotted to him. THE complainant went to the site and found that plot has not been demarcated and hence he approached Meerut Development Authority. He came to know that possession of the plot will be given at the earliest after making development. On this assurance from the appellant Meerut Development Authority, the complainant started depositing the instalments. Vide letter dated 25.2.1992 the complainant was informed that the possession will be handed over to him on completion of the required formalities. When the complainant went to the site, he found that the plotting has not been done and in future also there may not be any possibility of plotting of the area. THE complainant has also alleged that he came to know that land acquisition matter is pending in Civil Court and there is no hope of getting the plot. THErefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for refund of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. The appellant in its written version has alleged that the complainant has not completed the formalities hence possession could not be given to him. The appellant has placed an argument that there is no dispute about the land and the plot has been demarcated with provision of full development.

The learned Forum after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on part of the appellant and directed for refund of the entire deposited amount alongwith 15% per annum interest and Rs. 500/- to be paid as cost of the litigation.

AGGRIEVED against this order of the learned Forum, the appellant has come up in appeal challenging the correctness of the order. We have heard the learned Counsel for the two parties. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant possession letter was issued on 25.2.1992 but no copy of the same, alleged to have been issued to the complainant, has been filed on record. Unless a copy of the possession letter is shown to have been served on the complainant, it cannot be said that there was no deficiency in service on part of the complainant. Not having been able to produce any evidence by the appellant, it is held that no letter of possession was issued to the complainant.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the interest rate awarded by the learned Forum in its order is on the higher side. This contention about rate of interest cannot be accepted as National Commission in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC), has held the same view that interest that should be allowed should be the same which the Authority recovers from the allottees on default on the amount payable to the Authority. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 592, has held that interest shall be payable @ 18% per annum. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of Lata Construction Company & Ors. v. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors., III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 77=1999 (9) Supreme Court Cases 534, has also upheld the interest @ 18% in case of builder. In the present case the interest @ 15% only has been awarded which cannot be by any means said to be on the higher side. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Meerut, which requires no interference. Reasonable amount of interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment has been awarded by the learned Forum. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut, are confirmed. The appellant shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the litigation.

LET compliance be made within two months from the date of the order.

LET copies be issued to the concerned parties as per norms. Appeal dismissed.