RAGHUBIR SARAN AGGARWAL vs LUCKNOW VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

THIS complaint which was presented in the Registry of the Commission on 22.2.1993 has Lucknow Development Authority (for short L.D.A.) as the sole opposite party in it. The complainant Sri Raghubir Saran Agrawal has appeared before us in person in support of the case. No one is preset on behalf of the L.D.A. though a written statement filed on its behalf through Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Advocate is on the record of the case. The complainant has filed an affidavit in the form of Rejoinder Affidavit stating necessary facts on oath. The L.D.A. has not filed any affidavit in the case.

THE complainant''s case is that he had applied for house of a M.I.G. category in the Kanpur Road Nagar Prasar Yojana of the L.D.A. in Sector-H and had deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the L.D.A. on 27th June, 1989 as the registration amount. According to the Brochure relating to the scheme the estimated price of the house was Rs. 2.5 lakhs with an area of 115.50 sq. metres with certain further details. THE L.D.A. alleged house No. M.M. 3/457 through allotment letter dated 30 March, 1991 in favour of the complainant and indicated in it that the complainant was to deposit the price of the house in six quarterly instalments in United Commercial Bank, Hazaratganj, Lucknow in instalments of Rs. 37,667/-. THE complainant did so between 30 April, 1991 and 29 July, 1992, depositing the entire price initially asked from him. However, he discovered that by requiring the complainant to deposit these instalments the L.D.A. had increased the cost of the house from Rs. 2.05.000/- to Rs. 2,46,600/-. As such, a sum of Rs. 41,000/- had been charged in excess from the complainant towards the price of the house. The complainant says that according to the Brochure possession over the house was to be delivered to him within a reasonable time on 1 January, 1993. It has, however, not been delivered to him so far. The complainant also says that he had obtained a Housing Loan of Rs. 71,000/- on payment of interest @ 18% per annum for paying the price of the house.

Various reliefs have been asked for in the complaint. The first two reliefs relate to the refund of the excess amount of Rs. 41,000/- towards the cost of the house and recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- which the complainant was likely to spend in getting the house re-plastered and for removal of other defects. The complainant has fairly stated before the Commission today that the first relief relating to the excess price does not form part of a consumer dispute and he cannot ask for it in the present proceedings. He has also stated that the second relief can also not be prayed for by him at this stage when possession of the house has not yet been given to him.

THE remaining relief which the complainant is claiming in this petition is two-fold : Firstly, the complainant has asked for being compensated at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the period till the actual possession of the completed house has been given to him from a date by which the L.D.A, may be directed to hand over possession to him, or, in the alternatives interest be awarded to the complainant on the amount of Rs. 2,46,000/- deposited by him with the L.D.A. @ 18% per annum till the date of actual possession of the house to him.

IN the written statement the L.D.A. has put forward the plea that after the construction of the house had been completed its finishing could not be done due to the lapse on the part of contractor and efforts were being made to complete the construction at the earliest. It has also been stated in para 9 of the written statement dated 11 May, 1994 that the house was likely to be completed and its possession handed over to the complainant very shortly. From the evidence on record it is clear that even after realising the entire amount of the enhanced cost of the house from the complainant as far back as by 29 July, 1992, the L.D.A. has not given possession of the house allotted to the complainant to him even though on 11 July, 1994 it came out with the plea that the possession was to be given to the complainant ''very shortly''. Allowing a reasonable period which would take care or unexpected delay in execution of a scheme like the present by the L.D.A. for a reasonable period of one year from the date by which the house should have been completed and its possession given to the complainant as asserted in para 9 of the written statement, the L.D.A. should have been able to hand over possession to the complainant at least by August 31,1994. It has not handed over possession of the completed house to the complainant even till today. There is no material placed by the L.D.A. on the record of this case to show any cogent reason for its inability to give possession of the house to the complainant even till today. Obviously after getting the entire cost of the house deposited by the complainant the failure of the L.D.A. to give possession thereof to him within a reasonable time is deficiency in service on its part. The complainant is entitled for compensation from the L.D.A. for this deficiency. One of the modes by which the complainant can be compensated is by awarding interest to him on the ground deposited by him with the L.D.A. and this is the mode which appears reasonable in the circumstances of the present case when the complainant has not placed any material on the record to show that he was suffering a loss of Rs. 2,000/- per month on account of the inability of the L.D.A. to give possession of the allotted house to him. The amount deposited by the complainant has been with the L.D.A. for several years and the complainant has been deprived of its use. Taking into account the circumstances in their totality we feel that ends of justice shall be met by directing the L.D.A. to pay interest to the complainant on the sum of Rs. 2,46,000/- @ 15% per annum from 1 August, 1992 till 31 August, 1994 and at the rate of 18% per annum from 1 September, 1994 till the date of actual possession of the house being given to the complainant. We direct accordingly.

THE amount aforesaid shall be paid to the complainant by the L.D.A. within 3 months from today failing which the entire amount due shall carry further interest @ 18% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment. In addition, the complainant would been titled to costs of these proceedings which we fix at Rs. 1,000/-.

THE complaint shall stand allowed as aforesaid. Let a copy of the order be made available to the complainant within three weeks from today and so sent to the L.D.A. by post as per rules. Complaint allowed with costs. __________