Rajasthan Housing Board vs Satish Gupta

THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.7.1996 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan in Complaint Case No. 3 of 1994 directing the appellant - Rajasthan Housing Board to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 2,13,596 @ 16% p.a. from 15.3.2002 to 3.12.1993; to refund Rs. 2,047.95 and cost of Rs 1,000.

THE respondent-complainant was registered under the "Kalpataru" scheme by depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000 on 30.12.1989. On the same day the respondent deposited a further sum of Rs. 20,000 for registering himself under "Parijat Self Financing Scheme". A reservation letter was issued to the respondent on 15.3.1990 reserving a house in the aforesaid scheme in Sanganer Colony, Jaipur. THE respondent was to deposit estimated cost of the house in 4 instalments from 15.4.1990 to 15.9.1991, which were deposited by the respondent. Allotment letter was issued on 12.2.1993 alloting him house No. 86/122 in Sanganer Scheme, Jaipur requiring the complainant to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 62,813 which was deposited on 30.3.1993 and a further sum of Rs. 10,235 was yet to be deposited as it was disclosed that there had been some clerical mistake in calculating the amount. THE possession was given on 3.12.1993. The grievance of the appellant is that interest over and above 6% could not have been awarded in view of the terms of the contract and 15% was charged by the Housing Board as the Housing Board was supposed to secure finance from HUDCO.

We feel that this appeal in so far as direction to refund all lease money is concerned, if the house in question was sold not on hire purchase but on out right sale, the lease money amounting to Rs. 2,047.95 charged for 10 years was wrongly charged and had to be refunded.

THE only point, which still remains to be considered, relates to the rate of interest. In so far as the interest on deposited amount during the period of delay is concerned in terms of judgment of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=JT 1993 (6) SC 307, had laid down that when possession of the property is not delivered within a stipulated period, the delay so caused is denial of service. THEre is no dispute that the possession of the house was to be delivered within two years and in terms of the agreement, if the Housing Board was not able to deliver the house to the respondent within two years, it would pay interest @ 6% p.a. for the period commencing after two years till the date of possession. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a judgment of this Commission in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur v. Rohit Kumar Shah, F.A. No. 344 of 1996 decided on 6.7.2005 in which it is stated that "however, as far as the award of interest @ 15% p.a. is concerned, our attention has been drawn towards the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA v. Smt. Nalini Aggarwal, II (1997) CPJ 8 (SC)=AIR 1997 SC 2582, in which it was held ''since no interest will be paid'' was mentioned in the notification inviting the applications by the HUDA, hence interest could not be claimed. Our attention has also been drawn to another judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Gautam Constructions and Fisheries Ltd. v. NABARD and Another, VI (2000) SLT 21=2000 (6) SCC 519, in which it was held ''Courts do not have the jurisdiction in awarding interest higher than the rate mutually agreed upon between the parties''. In the case of Bihar State Housing Board v. V.K. Sharma and Others, in Civil Appeal Nos. 1566-67 of 1997 decided on 17.2.1997, Hon''ble the Supreme Court held that the Court could not give a direction to pay interest contrary to the interest regulated by Housing Board. There is no disputing the fact that in the notification in Rajasthan Patrika dated 3.10.1996, it is stipulated that in case there is a delay in handing over the possession the amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. Before the State Commission as also before us, the booklet of Parijat Scheme was not produced. The notification in Rajasthan Patrika, thus, becomes the ground for deciding this case, that at best the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. in the light of the three judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court (supra).

IN the light of above discussion, the matter appears to be covered by the aforesaid judgment and the appeal is allowed partly to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. instead of 15% on Rs. 2,13,596 from 15.3.1992 to 3.12.1993 and on Rs. 2,047.95 paise from 3.12.1993 till date of payment. Appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Appeal partly allowed.