N.K.Sood vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

LEARNED Counsel for the complainants states that the name of complainant No. 5 be deleted as the Ghaziabad Development Authority has settled the dispute with the complainant No. 5 separately and directly.

THIS complaint is filed by the employees of the Public Sector Undertaking namely Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. which is under the direct control of Ministry of Power, Union of India. In the said complaint it is averred that the GDA has approached the Ministry of Power by making representations and motivating them into recommending the purchase of the flats constructed by it in the Indirapuram Scheme to its employees. After discussion, the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. recommended to its employees to make booking of flats with the GDA. As per the scheme, the possession of the flats was to be given by 31st December, 1994 as indicated in the letter dated 9.7.2003. GDA failed to deloiver the possession of the flats as promised. However, after elapse of 7 years the GDA offered possession of the flats in the year 2001 by increasing the original cost by 50% i.e. the original cost of Rs. 5,43,125 was increased to Rs. 8,21,325 by letter dated 8.2.2001.

It is contended by the complainants that the quality of the construction was absolutely poor and there were structural changes in the building without consulting the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and that the increased cost was totally arbitrary. Hence, prayer is made for the following directions: 1. Direct the opposite party to pay the following damages to the complainants : (a) The money paid, interest paid thereon from the Date of payment upto the date of actual repayment by the opposite party which at present works out as under : Interest from 1995 upto August, 2001 Rs. 92,24,624.00 (b) Loss suffered on account of lease rent due to non-availability of house as promised by the opposite party Rs. 31,63,005.00 (c) Loss suffered on account of interest incurred on the loan from principal employer remaining unpaid on account of disablement caused in the matter of repayment of loan due to loss of lease rent as a conse-quence of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Rs. 15,16,916.00 (d) Damages on account of upsetting of the future plans of the complainants jeopardized on account of deficiency of service on part of the opposite party. Rs. 14,00,000.00 (e) Damages on account of escalation in price of contemporary properties. Rs. 21,00,000.00 (f) Punitive damages of Rs. 40,00,000 for rehabilitation of com-plainants and to discipline the opposite party since the opposite party is directly con-cerned with public interest and no deficiency in service in this respect can be tolerated. Rs. 40,00,000.00

WITH regard to the main submission that the possession of the flats was to be delivered to the complainants in the year 1994 there is no dispute. However, it is contended that the schedule envisaged was only provisional. Whatever may be the position even if it is provisional schedule, it cannot take seven years. Hence, it is apparent that there is unusual delay in constructing the flats. Complainants were required to invest their money after taking loan from the department. They waited for a long period for allotment of the flats. As the same was not done, they were required to file this complaint. The opposite party offered possession of the flats after increasing its price. Those flats were found by the complainants not as per the agreement and the construction is of poor quality. For this purpose number of photographs are produced on record. No doubt with regard to this aspect there is a dispute. However, Learned Counsel for the complainants submitted that if appropriate order directing the opposite parties to refund the amount with interest and compensation is passed, the complainants will be satisfied. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the complainants that the complainants took loan from the department and were paying interest on the said amount @ 11% p.a. Further if the complainants are required to purchase flats from the market today, the cost would be much more. Even for purchasing new flats, they are required to obtain loan from the Department. The Department would not give the loan because they have already taken loan previously for the same purpose. It is also contended by the complainants that they have lost mesne profit since 1994. It is also submitted that opposite parties have demanded penal interest @ 21% p.a. if there is any delay in paying the instalments or the escalation price.

CONSIDERING the aforesaid submissions, in our view, it would be just and reasonable to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount with interest @ 18% p.a. since 18% of the interest would cover the interest of 11% which the complainants are paying to the Department and the remaining 7% would cover the escalation in the cost of land and building. In the result, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainants with interest @ 18% from 1.1.1995 as contemplated date for handing over of possession in December, 1994 till the date of payment. The amount shall be refunded to the complainants on or before 31st July, 2005 after proper verification of the payments made by the complainants without any further delay. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Complaint disposed of