PRAMOD KUMAR MANDOLI vs BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh whereby the State Commission partly allowed the appeal. It is not necessary to discuss the facts in detail as the question to be decided in this revision petition is whether the petitioner herein (complainant before the District Forum) is entitled for interest for the delay in delivery of possession of the flats.

IN this case the complainant approached the District Forum for grant of compensation for the delay in delivery of the flats. The case of the complainant is that he had made the instalments to the respondent in time, i.e., the last instalment was made on 22.11.1992. After making the last instalment on 22.11.1992, the respondent had demanded escalation charges which was to be paid in two instalments, i.e., one instalment on 20.4.1993 and the other on 20.6.1993. The complainant made the first instalment of Rs. 30,000/- on 15.6.1993, and the second instalment of Rs. 40,000/- was made on 21.5.1996. After making the second instalment on 21.5.1996, the respondent offered possession of the flat to the complainant. The main contention of the complainant before the District Forum was that the delivery of the possession of the flat should have been offered by respondent by 22.2.1993. IN response to this contention, the respondent contended before the District Forum that possession could not be offered till the deposit of the escalation in price. IN this connection, it is pertinent to reproduce the view of the District Forum which reads as under: "So far as the escalation in the prices is concerned, the argument of the non-applicant is not acceptable that since the amount was not deposited in time no possession of the premises could be delivered and that amount ought to be deposited before delivery of possession. The claim of the applicant has not been rebutted that he made many approaches to the office of the respondent and enquired about completion of the building and about delivery of possession, no information was furnished to him. Even in its letter dated 22.5.1993 the respondent did not mention about completion of the building. IN these circumstances if the applicant made deposit late, no breach can be attributed on his part and on the basis even after receiving the last instalment on 24.11.1992 and thereafter for 3 months, i.e., 28.2.1993 (sic). If no delivery of possession is made, it is deficiency. On this basis the applicant is entitled to get interest." IN view of the above discussion, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the deposited amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- from 24.2.1993 to 28.2.1998. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent went in appeal to the State Commission. The contention of the complainant/respondent before the State commission was that the escalated cost was to be worked out after final construction. The construction was completed on 21.1.1997, therefore, prior to that escalated cost could not have been demanded. Hence, the respondent for its own lapse under the garb of non-payment of the amount cannot avoid the payment of interest. If the respondent wanted the documents to be executed in the joint name, in that case too they ought to have been completed, but the construction was completed in the year 1997, therefore, the District Forum rightly passed the order.

The State Commission upon hearing the parties and on reappraisal of the evidence returned the finding that the respondent deposited the second instalment of the escalated price only on 21.5.1996 and after deposit of the amount, the possession of the flat ought to have been delivered within a reasonable time of two months. That having not been one, the respondent/complainant was entitled to interest for the delay in possession of the flat at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1.8.1996 till the date of delivery of possession which shall be paid along with costs awarded by the District Forum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of the State Commission and allowed the appeal of the appellant/respondent, Bhopal Development Authority to the limited extent indicated above.

FEELING aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has come in revision before us with the prayer that he be allowed interest at the rate of 16.5 per cent on the amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- from 22.1.1993 to 31.1.1997. His contention is that the Bhopal Development authority charges penal interest on the defaulted instalments at the rate of 16.5. per cent and hence he shall also be paid interest at the same rate. We have gone through the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. We find that even when the amount of escalation was communicated vide letter dated 22nd May, 1993 no date of completion or date of delivery of possession was communicated, but that escalated amount was to be deposited in two instalments. The first instalment was deposited within time allowed and the delay was only in respect of the 2nd instalment, because the construction had not been completed. There was inordinate delay in doing so. However, the balance was also deposited before the end of January, 1997. In that view of the matter, we consider that the respondent, Bhopal Development Authority had the use of the complainant''s money all along and it is only fair if they pay interest on the amount which remained deposited with the said authority upto 1993. The only amount which could not carry interest was which was deposited late, i.e., second half of escalated price deposited late, for the period of the due date and till the date of payment. Otherwise, the interest should not have been disallowed. We find that the District Forum''s order did not call for any interference and there it was only fair award interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the complainant by the opposite party/respondent, Bhopal Development Authority. The revision petition is allowed in terms of what is discussed above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.