RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD vs R C Bhandari

FIRST Appeal No. 620 of 1994 is directed against the Order dated 30th of May, 1994 passed by the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 119 of 1992 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 1,85,000 / - at the rate of 15% per annum for the period commencing from 1st April, 1990 to 30th April, 1992 and also to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 3,08,900/ - from 1st May, 1992 to l5th October, 1992 at the rate of 15% per annum besides costs of Rs. 1000/ -.

THE facts are not in dispute and may be briefly noticed. The complainant got himself registered in the Self -Financing Scheme, 1987, of the Rajasthan Housing Board, opposite party before the State Commission -appellant herein, on 10.11.87 and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - along with his application. The complainant also asked the opposite party to treat his payment of Rs. 10,000/ - made earlier as deposit alongwith the said amount and thus a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - came to be deposited by the complainant on 10.11.87. The opposite party in its letter dated 6.2.88 called upon the complainant to deposit the tentative cost of Rs. 1,85,000/ - in 4 six - monthly instalments during the period 15.3.88 to 15.9.89 with liberty to adjust the amount of Rs. 20.000/ - in the 4th instalment. The complainant deposited the total amount of Rs. 1,85,000/ - in instalments by 15.9.89. Clause 5.5 of the Scheme provided that in case the opposite party did not deliver the possession of the house after construction within 2 years, it would pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum commencing from after the expiry of 2 years till the delayed date for delivery of possession. The opposite party, however, completed the construction of the houses, including the one allotted to the complainant, only by January, 1992. A lottery was drawn up on 29.1.92 and house No. 11 /946, Coopasni Housing Board was allotted to the complainant. A demand notice, dated 5.2.92, i.e., allotment -cum -possession letter, was issued to the complainant intimating to him that the total cost of the house had came upto Rs. 3,08,900/ - and that the complainant was required to deposit Rs. 1,96,098/ - latest by 5.9.92 and to obtain possession of the said house. However, later on a revised letter was issued by the opposite party on 9.4.92 intimating to the complainant to deposit only Rs. 1,10,914/ - because the balance amount had already been deposited by the complainant. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 90,914/ - on 25.4.92 and balance amount of Rs. 20,000/ - on 4.5.92 by demand draft and submitted the requisite papers as desired by the opposite party in its letter dated 5.2.92. The possession of the house was, however, delivered to the complainant on 15.10.92. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not completing the construction of the said house within the stipulated period of 2 years, charging excess amount as the costs of the house, delay in delivery of the possession, even after the deposit of the additional amount on 4.5.92 and the complainant claimed interest on the amount deposited by him for the period for which the possession was delayed, besides claiming compensation.

AFTER being noticed, the opposite party filed its written version. The facts noticed in the earlier part of the order were not disputed. The State Commission opined on the basis of the provisions contained in the Self -Financing Scheme, that the applicants who had applied for registration under the Self -Financing Scheme of 1987 reasonably expected that they would get possession of the house in two years of the issue of reservation letter in their favour and the cost of the house would approximately be Rs. 1,85,000/ - subject, of course, to certain escalation in the cost of construction due to any reason. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the opposite party failed to place any documentary evidence on record as to when the opposite party started the construction of the house of the complainant after the issue of the reservation letter dated 6.7.88 and that the entire documentary evidence regarding starting of the construction of the house and its completion was within the possession of the opposite party and they have failed to produce. The State Commission concluded that the opposite party had not started construction of the house upto the middle of the year, 1990 despite the projected fact as the approximate period of the delivery of the possession of the house was to be 2 years. The State Commission also recorded a finding that the possession had been delivered to the complainant only on 15.10.92 despite the fact that the complainant had furnished the acceptance letter undertaking, the affidavit on 27.4.92 and the entire amount deposited on 4.5.92. The State Commission allowed the complaint and granted the reliefs as noticed above.

THE appellant has filed his appeal delayed by 5 days. We have considered the application and the affidavit in support thereof and find sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is entertained on merits. We have heard Mr. Badridas Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent and have gone through the records. The first submission of Mr. Badridas Sharma is that the State Commission erred in holding that the building operation of the house as started only in April, 1990. It is urged that many applicants under the Self - Financing Scheme had opted for possession of skeleton -houses and possession had in fact delivered to them during the period March, 1990 to January, 1992 and as the complainant did not agree to switch -over to the skeleton scheme the contruction was completed thereafter. This argument is stated to be rejected as the opposite party did not place any material on the recoord to show that the construction of the skeleton houses had been started in the year 1988 and was completed by June, 1990. The opposite party was bound to produce documentary evidence in their possession before the State Commission to enable the State Commission to appreciate the evidence and to come to a conclusion. In the absence of the documentary evidence on record the conclusion of the State Commission that there has been failure on the part of the opposite party in completing the construction within a reasonable period of 2 years amounted to deficiency in service and that finding is upheld. The only other submission of Mr. Sharma is that the complainant had agreed that in case the house was not completed within the period of 2 years, he would get interest on the amount deposited by him at the rate of 6% p.a., as stipulated in paragraph 6.5 of the booklet issued at the time and thus the complainant was entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for the period from 1st April, 1990 to 30th April, 1992 and for the period 1st May, 1992 to 15 th October, 1992. So far as the grant of interest to the complainant on the amount of Rs. 3,08,900/ - from 1.5.92 to 15th October, 1992 at the rate of 15% p.a. is concerned, this Commission is of the opinion that the rate of interest is on the conservative side. Admittedly the complainant deposited the entire amount by 4th May, 1992 and completed all formalities and filed requisite documents and an affidavit. There is no whisper on the record as to why the possession was delayed by the opposite party from 4th May, 1992 to 15th October, 1992. We cannot accept the mere assertion of the opposite party that the complainant did not take the possession himself. This grant of interest which we uphold, is for the deficiency in service in delivering possession by the opposite party to the complainant. Under the Self -Financing Scheme if there is a delay in the payment of the instalments, the applicants were required to pay interest at the rate of 15% p.a. In this case, the complainant''s money was lying with the opposite party for an unduly long period during which the delivery of possession was delayed.

THE grant of interest at the rate of 15% for the period commencing from 1st Apri1,1990 and 30th April, 1992 is, however, against the contractual stipulation contained in Para 6.5 of the Scheme. It was clearly mentioned therein that in case the opposite party did not deliver the possession of the house after construction within two years, it shall pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. commencing from after the expiry of two years till the delayed date for delivery of possession. The complainant was, thus, entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. only and not 15%. The order of the State Commission is partly modified accordingly.

IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The complainant is held entitled to payment of interest on the amount of Rs.l,85,000/ - @ 6%p.a. for the period 1.4.90 to 30.4.90 and on the amount of Rs.3,08,900/ - @ 15% p.a. for the period 1.5.92 to 15.10.92. This payment will be made by the appellant herein within one month of the date of the order. The parties will bear their own costs of the appeal.