Municipal Corporation Kanti vs Jay Chand Sharma

THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal, dated 15.11.1996, dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner. The brief facts out of which this controversy has arisen may be stated as under.

THE Respondent presented a complaint before the District Forum, Jabalpur, claiming interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on account of delayed delivery of possession of the house. The Petitioner floated a scheme in the year 1991 for sale on hire purchase basis residential houses under its Scheme No. 6. According to the Claimant, the price of the house was fixed at Rs. 1,10,000/ - Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - was to be paid at the time of registration and the subsequent instalments of Rs. 15,000/ - each were to be deposited on 1.8.1991, 1.11.1991 and 1.4.1992. The balance amount of Rs. 55,000/ - was to be deposited by the year 2006 in equal half -yearly -instalments. According to the Complainant, he booked one MIG house and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - on 29th May, 1991 and, thereafter, he deposited the other instalments of Rs. 15,000/ - each on 30.7.1991, 1.10.1991 and 31.3.1992. It was the case of the Complainant that the possession of the house was to be delivered within 18 months from the registration of flat, i.e. from 29th May, 1991. According to the Complainant, the house was not constructed within the stipulated period of 18 months and he was entitled to recover interest on the deposits made by him. The Claim was contested on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. But the pleas raised on behalf of the Corporation did not find favour with the District Forum and the complaint was allowed with the direction to the Corporation to pay to the Complainant interest on Rs. 10,000/ - from 29th May, 1991, on Rs. 25,000/ - from 1.8.1991, on Rs. 40,000/ - from 1.11.1991, on Rs. 55,000/ - from 1.4.1992 till 14.11.1994, the date of possession, at the rate of 15% p.a. It was directed that the amount so worked out be adjusted in the future instalments payable by the Complainant.

THE Municipal Corporation approached the State Commission, by way of an appeal which was dismissed. The State Commission held that there was no legal infirmity in the order of the District Forum which may call for its interference and the appeal was dismissed summarily. That is how, the Municipal Corporation has come up before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

IT was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that there was no stipulation or assurance given to the Complainant that the house would be completed within 18 months. We have considered the contention of the Counsel and we find merit in it. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Municipal Corporation had agreed to deliver the possession of the house within 18 months from the date of registration The allegations of the Complainant were that the officer of the Corporation had told verbally that he would get possession within 18 months. It has been denied by the Corporation that an assurance, as alleged, was given to the Complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Corporation should have delivered possession of the house within a period of 2 years from the date of registration. In this case, the registration was effected on 29th May, 1991 and in normal course the possession should have been delivered on 1.6.1993. But, it was actually delivered on 14.11.1994. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to the recovery of interest from 1.6.1993 to 14.11.1994 on the amount of only Rs. 55,000/ - The order of the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission is modified to the extent indicated above The Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms.