MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs S.R.MISRA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.5.1999 passed by District Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 637/1997. The facts of the case, stated in brief, are that the complainant applied for a plot of land on 19.11.1985 in Sector 8 of Shatabdi Nagar Yojna of Meerut Development Authority and after depositing Rs. 10,000/- as registration fee. By letter dated 29.3.1990 the complainant was informed by Meerut Development Authority that a plot has been reserved for him. By letter dated 24.4.1992 the complainant was informed that plot No. 2/ 91 has been allotted to him and by subsequent letter dated 16.2.1994 he was promised possession of the house latest by April, 1995. Believing the words of Meerut Development Authority, the complainant deposited the entire amount towards the cost of the plot in instalments but in spite of his retirement, the possession of the plot has not been given to him. Thereafter he was informed by Meerut Development Authority that possession cannot be given of this plot on account of incomplete development work and the complainant can get another plot in lieu of this plot if he consents to do so. The complainant did not agree to this proposal and asked for refund of the money. The complainant had also claimed damages and expenses of litigation.

IN the written statement it was mentioned that due to some unforeseeable reasons, the development work could not be completed and hence possession could not be delivered. As the complainant did not agree for another plot, therefore, the amount can be refunded in accordance with the rules. The learned District Forum, after hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the entire amount is to be refunded to the complainant alongwith 15% per annum interest and cost of the litigation. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also been heard in the present case. According to the learned Counsel due to certain unforeseeable reasons, the development work could not be completed and possession could not be delivered to the complainant. On query by the Commission it was disclosed by the learned Counsel that possession has not been delivered till today. The learned District Forum has considered each and every fact and every aspect of matter and has rightly come to the conclusion that the entire amount alongwith interest is to be returned.

According to the learned Counsel for the appellant due to certain reasons, the development work could not be completed but what are those unforeseen circumstances have not been given. Therefore, this contention cannot be believed.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that no interest should be charged because on the deposits which are refunded on the request of the party no interest is paid, rather deduction is made according to rules. In the present case we find that the fault lies with the Meerut Development Authority and not with the allottee. THE complainant did not like to have an alternative plot and, therefore, she applied for refund of the amount when possession of the plot has not been delivered to her even after five years of allotment order. In the present case, learned Counsel for the appellant has disclosed that penal interest at the rate of 16% per annum is charged from an allottee if there is a delay in payment of instalments. In the present case the interest awarded is 15%. Thus when the appellant charges interest at the rate of 16% per annum, then it is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum as awarded and cannot be said to be on the higher side. On the same principle, the National Commission has also held that the interest is payable at the same rate at which Development Authority charges penal interest from the allottees in case of their failure to pay instalments in time. Thus, this appeal has no force and is dismissed.

LET compliance be made within six weeks from today. LET the copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rule. Appeal dismissed.