PARVEEN KAPOOR vs CHAIRMAN, JALLANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

THIS appeal is by the complainants Parveen Kapoor and Archana Kapoor challenging order of District Forum, Jalandhar dated April 28,1997 whereby a direction was given to the Jalandhar Improvement Trust to immediately hand over possession of the flat and to pay costs of litigation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainants. In appeal, complainants claimed compensation for inconvenience and harassment caused.

THE complainants were allotted HIG Flat No. 7 SF by Jalandhar Improvement Trust in June, 1993. As per terms and conditions of the allotment, the price of the flat was payable in instalments in a phased manner. THE possession of the flat was delivered after payment of all the dues. As per allegations made in the complaint, the entire amount due was paid as per details given at page 2 of the complaint. THE construction of the flat was required to be completed within two years from the date of allotment, which is July 6,1995. Even when the complaint was filed, the possession had not been delivered. Thus they claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lac and interest on the price of the flat on account of delay and upto the date of delivery of possession. A dispute was also being raised with regard to the price of the flat charged from the original allottees and subsequent allottees. Further direction was sought that the Improvement Trust should be, restrained from increasing the cost of the flats due to abnormal delay on their part. THE complaint was contested by the Improvement Trust on various grounds. On the evidence produced by the parties, the impugned order was passed. Since no appeal has been filed by the Trust, the finding recording deficiency in rendering service is to be accepted as correct. Thus, the only question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the complainant is required to be compensated for the delay in delivering the possession when the complainant had paid the entire amount of the sale consideration. As per Grounds of Appeal, it is stated that all the payments towards the sale price including interest was paid on June 30,1996 and the possession was not given till November 15, 1996. This would show that at the most the claim of the complainant was to grant of interest by way of compensation for the period June 30 to November 15,1996 i.e. for five and a half months. Ends of justice require that the complainant should be compensated for not delivering possession of the flat for a period of 5 months when he had paid price as claimed. The other point raised in this case is about unfair trade practice adopted by the Improvement Trust in charging interest on delayed payments of instalments of the price of the Flat and not paying similar interest for delay in completion of the project. This question does not require detailed consideration for the simple reason that for 5 months'' delay, the complainant is being compensated. It would be reasonable to allow the same rate of interest to the complainant which was charged from them on account of delayed payment of the instalments. That would be just and fair.

Another point raised in the Grounds of Appeal is for enhancement of the costs of the Flats on account of delay in completing the construction. This question did not find favour with the District Forum and no convincing argument had been addressed to take a contrary decision. The increase in the price of the Flat depends on different factors and the FORA was not expected to go into the pattern of fixing price of the flats.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed. The Improvement Trust is directed to pay compensation by way of interest at the same rate, which was charged from the complainant on account of delay in payment of the instalments for the period of 5 months @ 18% p.a. on the total price charged from the complainants regarding, flat in dispute. To that extent order of the District FORum is modified. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. The directions are to be complied within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. If any dispute still remains regarding the quantum, the same would be settled in proceedings under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act. Appeal partly allowed. ___________