RAKESH SRIVASTAVA vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.12.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 402 of 1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for allotment of a house in Pratap Vihar under a self-financing scheme. THE Ghaziabad Development Authority allotted one M.I.G. house, the cost of which has been indicated as Rs. 1,75,000/-. This house was in Govindpuram. THE entire price of the house was deposited by the complainant within the time allowed. THE possession of the house was to be delivered by the year 1991 but the possession was delivered only on 25.2.1995. At the time of taking possession, a number of deficiencies were found existing in the said house and the complainant approached the opposite party to make up those deficiencies, but there was no response. A sum of Rs. 12,900/- was spent by the complainant to remove those deficiencies. THE complainant also spent a sum of Rs. 600/- which was wrongly charged towards charges of a watchman. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the possession could not be delivered on account of stay order by the Hon''ble High Court which was in effect from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993 during which period no construction work was done.

The parties filed evidence before the learned District Forum, who after considering the case of the parties, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority to pay within two months a sum of Rs. 2,100/- along with 14% per annum interest from 20.5.1995 till the date of payment.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent. None was present on behalf of the appellant on the date fixed for arguments.

A perusal of the, grounds of appeal will go to show that the possession was to be delivered in the year 1991 but the development work was going on and the possession was delivered after issuance of possession letter dated 20.9.1994. When the complainant inspected the site, he found that the development work was not completed. It is further alleged that it has not been intimated that the stay order which was passed by the Hon''ble High Court was applicable to the plot in dispute. It is also alleged that the material used was of sub-standard quality. All the development work like sewer line, roads, electricity, water, park, hospital, etc. should have been constructed. It is also prayed that the interest should be awarded at the rate of 18% per annum. We have considered the questions raised by the complainant and find that the learned District Forum has given the finding that the complainant/appellant has been able to prove the expenditure of Rs. 2,100/- only. Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly allowed this amount to be paid by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The interest at the race of 14% per annum is also awarded on this amount, as the same has not been paid by the Ghaziabad Development Authority to the complainant. Thus we find that there is no flaw in the judgment of the learned District Forum. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.