RAMESH CHANDRA PANDIYA vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THE complainant has filed this complainant with a prayer for directing the opposite party to give possession of plot No. 6/167 in Vaishali Housing Scheme allotted in lieu of the plot allotted earlier at the same price without demanding further payment. He has also prayed for adequate compensation for mental agony, physical torture for pursuing the allotment of the plot from 1985 to 1996, loss of salary due to absence/leave etc. and expenditure on travelling, postage, stationery etc., loss due to rent paid for accommodation for him and his family members and increase in cost of construction which the complainant will be subjected to due to delay caused by opposite party. THE complainant has also prayed for 18% per annum interest on the deposited amount along with cost of suit.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that in the year 1984, a scheme was advertised by Ghaziabad Development Authority in pursuance of which the complainant applied on 10.1.195 for allotment of a plot measuring upto 300 sq. mtrs. of area in Nehru Nagar after depositing a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as registration fee. THE complainant was allotted plot No. II-E-170 measuring 167.44 sq. mtrs. vide letter dated 5.6.1985 in Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad. THE cost of the plot was indicated as Rs. 37,742/-. THE complainant visited the plot after delivery of letter of reservation and found that the plot had encroachments by some slum dwellers and the area identified for Park, facing the plot had a pucca ''Balmiki Mandir'' constructed over it. With this apprehension that the complainant will not be able to get possession of the plot he approached the Ghaziabad Development Authority office time and again but he got a reply that the possession will be given as soon as the money is deposited. THE complainant thereafter received letter dated 24.6.1986 by which the premium and interest was demanded. THE complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 18,859.20. THEreafter whenever he approached the Ghaziabad Development Authority office, he was told that the possession of the plot shall be considered only after deposit of the entire instalment. THE complainant deposited another amount of Rs. 22,000/- on 29.7.1987. He further deposited a sum of Rs. 17,500/- on 4.6.1988. He received letters dated 5.11.1988 and 23.5.1989 to take possession of the plot and accordingly he approached the plot section and met the concerned Junior Engineer. THE Junior Engineer contacted the other authorities and confirmed that the plot had encroachments and so it will be impossible to give possession of the plot without adequate security force. This was not given in writing by the Junior Engineer to the complainant and he told that this fact is known to all higher authorities. Despite the fact that the concerned Junior Engineer was unable to ensure peaceful possession of the plot to the complainant, the complainant applied for an alternative plot. No acknowledgement was issued. When the complainant again visited the plot section for providing correct computation of interest and premium, he was told that the file was not traceable and new file will have to be created. For this purpose he was asked to deposit copies of all previous correspondence. This was done by the complainant by letter dated 13.3.1990 which was acknowledged by the opposite party. The complainant refused to sign the possession letter which was given to him by the concerned Junior Engineer, without obtaining the possession on spot. Thereafter the complainant was running to the office of the opposite party, he recived a letter on 16.3.1990 that the plot of the complainant has been cancelled. This was an intentional and malafide act of the opposite party because only three days before issuing this letter he had submitted the duplicate papers to the Authority. On a second visit to the office of Ghaziabad Development Authority, the complainant requested for restoration, otherwise the money deposited by him be returned. The complainant did not give anything in writing. The complainant followed up and thereafter on 19.4.1990 a letter was received by the complainant restoring the allotment of the plot with the condition that opposite party himself will be responsible for taking possession of the house. Thereafter a further demand of Rs. 15,450.90 and restoration charges of Rs. 2,009.40 was made by the opposite party from the complainant with a codnition that no alternative plot will be given. The authorities assured the complainant that the vacant plot will be given to him sooner or later. These facts caused disturbance in the family of the complainant and high blood pressure to the complainant. The complainant replied vide letters dated 19.4.1990 and 28.4.1990 and requested that the restoration fee be waived and he be allowed to take possession as original allottee. The complainant again received a letter dated 22.5.1990 rejecting the above request and asked the complainant by letter dated 9.7.1990 to take possession of the plot. After several visits to the Officer on Special Duty, he found that the plot still has encroachments and the reply was that only after depositing the final money the opposite party will take further action for vacation of the plot and handing over possession. The complainant thereafter deposited the last instalment of Rs. 18,330.30 on 1.9.1990. The complainant has till date deposited a sum of Rs. 58,330/- against the total price of Rs. 37,842/-. He thereafter met the Vice Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority at his residence and requested him to help the complainant. The Vice Chairman advised the O.S.D. for necessary action. The O.S.D. sent after a spell of 7 years for visit to the site by the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer. They visited the site and mentioned in the note sheet stating clearly that it was impossible to give possession of the plot and that the City Board/Municipality has already laid down Kharinja, Nali and sewer line for Malin Basti on the plot. The plot was subsequently recommended by the Executive Engineer for change to some other location. The complainant tried for some action in the matter but he was informed that the Map Section has to confirm the availability alternative plot. The complainant thereafter wrote several letters requesting the opposite party to transfer the plot to an alternative developed site in lieu of the plot at IIE/170 which was earlier allotted to the complainant in its original price. The details of thirteen letters written by the complainant are given in the complaint, copies of which have also been filed. The complainant also paid several visits to the office of Mrs. Alka Tandon, Joint Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority and was assured of action before the end of year 1995. After fax dated 4.1.1996 and four personal visits the complainant was issued a letter confirming allotment of plot No. 6/167 measuring 250 sq. mtrs. in Vaishali Housing Scheme in lieu of plot No. II/E-170. The complainant thereafter submitted copies of all the receipts in proof of the deposit of the premium. After 7 months the complainant received a letter dated 23.8.1996 for depositing a further sum of Rs. 3,39,179.10 for allotment of plot No. 6/167 in Vaishali. A letter dated 23.8.1996 was received from the opposite party, Ghaziabad Development Authority, threatening the complainant for levying Chowkidara charges. It is alleged that the additional deposit of premium is not only beyond the means of complainant but is also against all the norms of justice and equity. He has also lost interest on the hard earned money which he has deposited with the Ghaziabad Development Authority and he now prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

The complainant was forced to stay as a tenant in a private accommodation and has spent Rs. 450/- per month as rent which now comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-.

IT is alleged that the opposite party was negligent in allotting a plot which was occupied by some slum dwellers and in not getting the plot vacated and giving its possession to the complainant after properly developing the same. The plot of 167.44 sq. mtrs. was allotted at the rate of Rs. 226/- per sq. mtr. The complainant originally filed this petition before the National Commission for Redressal of Consmer Disputes in New Delhi vide Complaint Case No. 198 of 1996 which was filed on 19.9.1996. As there was no sitting of the National Commission from July, 1997 to March, 1998 the complainant mentioned the complaint for early hearing. The National Commission suggested the complainant that the complainant should file a complaint with the State Commission after due amendment in the claim for compensation. Thereafter the complainant filed this complaint before this State Commission.

IN the written version it is alleged by the opposite party that vide allotment letter dated 5.6.1985 which was issued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority the complainant was requested to find out the stamp duty and registration fee and deposit the same with the opposite party for purposes of execution of registered lease deed. The complainant failed to do so. Thereafter the Ghaziabad Development Authority issued a possession letter dated 5.11.1988 and the complainant was directed to take possession of the plot in question. The complainant again failed to take possession of the plot in question. Thereafter a reminder dated 16.3.1990 was issued to the complainant to take possession of the plot. The complainant did not take the possession. Hence on 16.3.1990 the allotment letter was cancelled. It is alleged that at the time of issuance of allotment letter and possession letter there was no encroachment whatsoever on the plot in question. It is admitted that the answering opposite party vide its letter dated 19.4.1990 had restored the allotment of the plot No. IIE/170 which was allotted to the complainant with the condition that the complainant shall take possession of the plot himself and shall never demand for change of the plot. It is further alleged that the Ghaziabad Development Authority vide its demand letter dated 23.8.1996 has legally and rightly demanded the sector rate charges because the changed plot in Vaishali scheme is fully developed. The complainant is not taking possession of the plot with malafide intentions. The said plot was allotted in Vaishali scheme on prevalent sector rate of the plot. It is further alleged that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has not committed any deficiency in service while on the other hand the complainant has continued to commit fault by not taking possession of the plot in question. The parties filed evidence in support of their respective contentions. We have perused the evidence on record. The complainant was present in person and his arguments were heard on 15.9.2000. Counsel for the opposite party was not present on that date. His arguments were to be heard on 23.10.2000. On 23.10.2000 Counsel for the opposite party was not present and the case was adjourned to 16.11.2000. On 16.11.2000 Counsel was present and the case was asdjourned to 11.1.2001 and to 7.3.2001. The case could not be taken up on 11.1.2001 on account no sitting. Thereafter it was fixed for 7.3.2001 for arguments. On 7.3.2001 the complainant was present in person and a request was made on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority for adjournment which was allowed and 21.3.2001 was fixed for arguments. On 21.3.200 none was present on the side of Ghaziabad Development Authority. The written arguments were also filed by the complainant.

WE have perused the file and gone through the evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that plot No. II/E-170 measuring 167.44 sq. mtrs. was allotted to the complainant in Nehru Nagar scheme on 5.6.1985, the cost of which was Rs. 37,742/-. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 58,330/- against the price of this plot. The dispute between the parties took place on the question as to whether the plot was encroached upon or not. According to the complainant, ''Malin Basti'' was in existence on the plot in dispute and the complainant informed this fact to the Ghaziabad Development Authority and requested that the ''Malin Basti'' be removed from that place and after development the plot be given to the complainant. It was also alleged by the complainant that the City Board/Municipality had laid down Kharanja, sewer line, Nali etc. on the plot in question. In support of his contention he has filed a copy of a note dated 8.4.1992. This shows that the Junior Engineer has given a report with reference to letter dated 17.3.1990 received from the Plot Section for giving possession of plot No. II E/170 in Nehru Nagar. It has been mentioned by the Junior Engineer that the City Board/Municipality had laid down Kharanja, Nala, sewer line etc. on this plot. Now it appears impossible to give possession of the plot and the allottee had requested for change of this plot and this request of allottee is enclosed on the right side of the note sheet. Then there is a note below it to the Joint Secretary(s) by the Executive Engineer dated 9.4.1992 mentioning therein that in view of the circumstances mentioned by the Junior Engineer it has not been possible to give possession of the plot allotted to the allottee. It was recommended by the Executive Engineer for necessary action for change of plot to some other scheme may be taken. Thus this letter clearly goes to show that when the Junior Engineer went to the spot to deliver possession of the plot, he found that the City Board/Municipality had laid down Kharanja, sewer line, Nala etc. on the plot. The execution of this letter has not been denied by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. When this letter has not been denied by the Ghaziabad Development Authority it clearly goes to prove the contention of the complainant that the Malin Basti was in existence over the plot in dispute and later on City Board/Municipality had laid down Kharanja, Nali, sewer line etc. on this plot. Thus it is proved that the complainant was allotted a plot on which the Ghaziabad Development Authority could not give possession.

THERE is another letter dated 19.4.1990 which also throws light on this point. This letter was written by Joint Secretary of the Ghaziabad Development Authority to the complainant with reference to his letter dated 17.3.1990. It was informed to the complainant that the plot is restored with the condition that the complainant wil take possession of the plot himself and will not apply for change of this plot. If the plot was lying vacant and there was no hinderance in handing over possession of the plot, then this language would not have been written in the letter. When a plot is allotted to a complainant by a development agency, it is the duty of that agency to hand over possession of vacant plot to the allottee. The allottee cannot be forced to take possession of the plot by himself and not to ask for change of the plot. The writing of this letter is very cleverly drafted by the Ghaziabad Development Authority which indicates that the plot was not in a vacant position and the Ghaziabad Development Authority was not in a position to hand over possession of the vacant plot. This also proves the case of the complainant. The complainant''s next contention is that he has never been allotted another plot. Even in his letter dated 1.4.1992 the complainant informed the Ghaziabad Development Authority for handing over peaecful possession of the plot as there are a number of encroachments over it. This fact is proved by the report of the Junior Engineer who went to deliver the possession of the plot seven days after the issuance of this letter.

The complainant by letter dated 15.9.1994 had requested for change of the plot. He has given his preference to this place in his letter. Thereafter he issued a reminder on 30.1.1995 and 16.2.1995. Another reminder was issued on 21st August, 1995. He also wrote a letter on 25.9.1995 to the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority mentioning therein that he had written 17 letters on the subject, but none of them have been replied. Ultimately as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment the complainant was allotted an alternative plot in lieu of the old plot.

NOW the dispute is whether the complainant should get this plot on same rate on which he was allotted previous plot or he should pay the difference on the new price. According to the complainant as there is no fault of his he should be allotted a plot at the same old rate of Rs. 226/- per sq. mtr. NOW the Ghaziabad Development Authority has allotted the plot at a higher rate. The request of the complainant is justified on the ground that the previous plot which was allotted to him was encroached upon by slum dwellers and its possession could not be delivered by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. In support of his contention the complainant has placed reliance on the case of Rajnish Chander Sharda v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, II (1995) CPJ 70 (NC)=1995 (2) Current Consumer Cases, p. 939 (NS). In this case decided by the National Commission, a plot was allotted to the complainant. It was discovered when actual possession was to be handed over, that a factory existed on the plot. An alternative plot was allotted in place of old allotted plot on new rates. The National Commission on these facts observed as under : "It is amazing that it made allotment of plots whose actual physical possession could not be given either becasue there was a factory thereon or because the land was already in the possession of another party and the area was totally undeveloped."

It was observed by the National Commission that the complainant has been dealt with harshly and rudely and has been humiliated by HUDA when he approached it for implementing its assurance to this Commission for allotment of an alternative plot and it was directed by the National Commission that the HUDA should allot and give possession of a plot of 250 sq. yards to the complainant in the same sector or a neighbouring sector which has been reasonably developed and where the complainant can undertake construction without delay. It was further directed that HUDA shall not be entitled for any extra price for the allotment of this plot in lieu of what had been allotted to him earlier. Thereafter the National Commission also granted compensation etc. to the complainant.

THE next case is Harbans Singh v. Lucknow Development Authority, I (1994) CPJ 130 (NC)=1986-94, National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases page 19. This was an appeal by the complainant. In that case in the 1982 the Lucknow Development Authority had floated a scheme in Gomti Nagar. THE complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in November, 1982 as registration amount and the houses were to be developed and completed by 10.6.1984. THE value of the house was indicated as Rs. 1,25,000/-. THE amounts were deposited by the complainant as per requirement. When the complainant visited the site after having been issued a possession letter along with the Junior Engineer in June, 1990 it was found that the said house was in a dilapidated condition and the house was not complete. THE possession was not, therefore, handed over to the complainant. THE Junior Engineer had promised to complete the house within one month. On 27th July, 1990 when the complainant met the Junior Engineer he described the condition of the house and also mentioned about the unauthorised occupation of the house by some persons who are using the house as a godown for fabrication work with the knowledge of the authorities concerned. When the possession was not handed over the complainant filed a complaint on 30.11.1990. During the pendency of the complaint the possession was handed over on 8.5.1991. THE State Commission on this fact did not grant any interest on the amount deposited by the complainant. THE National Commission found that the State Commission did not compensate the complainant adequately and granted interest at the rate of 15% per annum. A compensation for monetary and physical loss and mental agony which was suffered by the complainant for more than six years was also granted of Rs. 3,000/- per month from 18.6.1990 till the date of taking possession. Even when the house was handed over, lot of repair was required for which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was also granted. This case law also supprots the case of the complainant that he should get compensation for the agony which he was suffered. In the case of Smt. Kalyani Das v. Secretary, Kerala Housing Board, Current Consumer Cases, 1995 (1) p 330, the National Commission had an occasion to consider such a case. An initial plot was allotted in 1972 for which the entire payment was made on 16.12.1972. In lieu of this plot another plot was allotted by Kerala Housing Board in the year 1987. Thus the new plot was allotted after sixteen years. The National Commission after considering the case took a view that the price of the second plot which was allotted to the complainant in lieu of the old plot allotted to her should be at the same price at which the old plot was allotted. Thus in view of the case laws discussed above it is clear that the Ghaziabad Development Authority cannot charge excess price from the complainant than the price for which the plot was allotted to the complainant in the year 1985. The cost of that plot was at the rate of Rs. 226/- per sq. mtr. The same price shall be charged by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for the new plot which has been allotted in lieu of the old plot.

THE complainant has also prayed for compensation for mental agony, physical tension etc. in pursuing the matter of allotment of the plot from 1985 to 1996, for a period of 11 years. In our opinion a sum of Rs. 25,000/- will be sufficient in the interest of justice.

THE complainant has also claimed for loss of salary, expenditure on travelling, postage, stationery etc. which we assess at Rs. 10,000/-. THE complainant has prayed for increase in cost of construction on account of delay caused due to non-delivery of possession by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. In case of Rajnish Chander Sharma v. Haryana Urban Development Authority (supra), the complainant was allowed compensation for escalation in the cost of construction from 1982 to 1994 in accordance with the construction done by Unified Building by Laws National Capital Territory of Delhi. THE compensation for escalation was to be got determined by the C.P.W.D. On the same lines we also think it proper to allow the increase in the construction cost from 1985 till the date of possession of the plot by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. THE escalation in cost of construction of the house should be worked out on the basis of the cost of construction index of U.P. Public Works Department in 1985 and in the year of date of possession. Now we take up the issue of interest which is to be granted to the complainant.

The complainant has argued that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum should be awarded to him on the amount deposited by him till obtains possession. The complainant has placed reliance on the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors. v. Lata Construction Company & Ors., I (1996) CPJ 81 (NC), decided by the National Commission. In that case the possession was not delivered within the time given in the agreement. When the house was not delivered in time the National Commission found that there was a deficiency in service on behalf of M/s. Lata Construction Company and awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Similarly the National Commission in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC), has held that the possession was not given to the allottee as per the scheme. The option was given by the Ghaziabad Development Authority to the complainant for taking another plot but the complainant did not agree to this proposition. On the basis of these facts, the National Commission held that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and allowed interest at the rate of 18% per annum because Ghaziabad Development Authority recovers interest at the rate of 18% per annum on defaults on the amounts payable to it. Thus this case law shows that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum is payable by the Development Authorities.

THE complainant has also placed reliance on the case of Surendra Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 592. THE Hon''ble Supreme Court has allowed interest at the rate of 18% per annum. When the delay is on the part of the Development Authority, it is liable to pay interest to the complainant for the period during which the amount remained deposited with it. The learned District Forum has awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till the date of payment. In the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Anr., II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 654=2000 CTJ 205, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under : "When a Development Authority announces a scheme for allotment of plots, the brochure issued by it for public information is an invitation to offer. Several members of public may make applications for availing benefit of the scheme. Such applications are offers. Some of the offers having been accepted subject to rules of priority or preferences laid down by the Authority result into a contract between the applicant and the Authority. The legal relationship governing the performance and consequences flowing from breach would be worked out under the provisions of the Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act except to the extent governed by the law applicable to the Authority floating the scheme. In case of breach of contract, damages may be claimed by one party from the other who had broken its contract obligation in some way or the other. The damages may be liquidated or unliquidated. Liquidated damages are such damages as have been agreed upon and fixed by the parties in anticipation of the breach. Unliquidated damages are such damages as are required to be assessed. Broadly the principle underlying assessment of damage is to put the aggrieved party monetarily in the same position as far as possible in which it would have been if the contract would have been performed. Here the rule as to remoteness of damages comes into play. Such loss may be compensated as the parties would have been contemplated at the time of entering into the contract. The party held liable to compensation shall be obliged to compensate for such losses as directly flow its breach."

The Supreme Court goes to say that "the ordinary heads of damages allowable in contracts for sale of land are settled. A vendor who breaks the contract by failing to convey the land to the purchaser is liable to damages for the purchaser''s loss of bargain by paying the market value of the property at the fixed time for completion less the contract price. The purchaser may claim the loss of profit he intended to make from a particular use of the land if the vendor had actual or imputed knowledge thereof. For delay in performance the normal nature of damage is the value of the use of the land for the period of delay, viz. usually its rental value".

ON the question of interest which is to be awarded, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the terms of the brochure issued by the Authority are relevant in a particular case. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has distinguished the case of Sovintorg (India) Limited v. State Bank of India, New Delhi, II (1999) CPJ 4 (SC)=VI (1999) SLT 545=(1999) 6 SCC 406, in which the rate of interest was enhanced to 15% per annum. It was observed as under : "However, in the case before us, the parties have not tendered any evidence enabling formation of opinion on the rate of interest which can be considered ideal to be adopted. The rate of interest awarded in equity should neither be too high or too low. In our opinion awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum would be just and proper and meet the ends of justice in the cases under consideration. The provision contained in the brochure issued by the Development Authority that it shall not be liable to pay any interest in the event of an occasion arising for return of the amount should be held to be applicable only to such cases in which the claimant is itself responsible for creating circumstances providing occasion for the refund. In the cases under appeal the fault has been found with the Authority. The Authority does not, therefore, have any justification for resisting refund of the claimants'' amount with interest."

The rate of interest allowed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court was only 12% per annum. That was the interest on the basis of the facts which were placed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Court itself has observed that in that case which was before it, the parties have not tendered any evidence enabling formation of any opinion on the rate of interest which can be considered ideal to be adopted. Thus the case which was decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court was on facts of that particular case in which the parties did not lead any evidence. The Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that it may come to a definite conclusion on the rate of interest on the basis of peculiar facts of the case. The facts of the present case are different from the facts of the case decided by Hon''ble Supreme Court. Herein the brochure issued by the Development Authority, provision is there that if the amount is not paid in accordance with the schedule mentioned in the brochure, then the interest for the delayed period shall be charged at the rate of 18% per annum. Thus when the Development Authority is charging interest at the rate of 18% per annum if any delay is made in the payment of instalments, then the same applies to it also. When the Development Authority has made provision for charging penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum on delayed payments, then on principles of equity and law, it is bound to pay interest at the same rate. In case of George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra), the National Commission has held that the interest payable shall be 18% per annum because the Development Authority is charging the same rate of interest from the allottees in case they fail to pay instalment in time. The rate of interest payable to the allottees who had deposited the amount for taking the flat from the Development Authority came before a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Vrinda Gujrati & Ors. v. Bareilly Development Authority & Ors., 1996 (II) Allahabad Rent Cases 383 . In pages 22 and 23 of the judgment, the Hon''ble High Court has held that the persons who have applied for taking a flat, there is a statutory obligation cast upon the authorities to complete the same within the time schedule mentioned in the offer and if they fail to discharge the same, the affected allottees are entitled for the interest for the delayed delivery of possession, as the allottees have parted with the money which was earning interest. It was also held that the petitioners are entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed delivery of possession on the amount deposited by him till the actual date of delivery of possession. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the case and law applicable to it as laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court, it is held that in the present case the rate of interest payable shall be at the rate of 18% per annum.

RECENTLY the Hon''ble Supreme Court had an occassion to consider the question of interest in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Rajnish Chander Sharde, III (2000) CPJ 8 (SC)=VII (2000) SLT 142=JT 2000 (8) SC 154. The short order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is being reproduced below : "There is no merit in this appeal considering what has been stated by the appellant in its own written statement fixed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, we express our surprise that it should have filed this appeal at all. Learned Counsel for the appellant now desires to confine the appeal only to the interest that has accumulated because of the stay order that was passed at the appellant''s instance by this Court. In the order of the National Commission it is stated that the respondent had claimed compensation for having being compelled to live in rented accommodation from 1982 till 1994 at the rate of Rs. 1,600/- per month. Instead of making that award, the National Commission directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amounts that had been deposited by the respondent from time to time from 1979 onwards till a new plot could be allotted to him and possession thereof could be delivered. Given the facts, we see no justification in interfering with that direction and, consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal and the vacation of the stay order, the direction must now be fully complied with."

The complaint is, therefore, liable to be partly decreed. ORDER The complaint is decreed and the Ghaziabad Development Authority is directed to hand over possession of a fully developed plot No. 6/167 measuring 260 sq. mtrs. in Vaishali Scheme within a period of two months from the date of service of the copy of this order on the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The complainant will also get interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount deposited by him from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The complainant will also get a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical tension etc. and Rs. 10,000/- as cost towards loss of salary, expenditure on postage, stationery etc. The complainant will also get a cost of Rs. 3,000/- from the opposite party. The rate at which the plot is to be given to the complainant shall be @ Rs. 226/- per sq. mtr. which was the rate at which the earlier plot was allotted to the complainant. We also direct that the Ghaziabad Development to pay the escalation in cost of construction of the house which should be worked out on the basis of the cost of construction index of U.P. Public Works Department in 1985 and the year of possession. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Complaint partly allowed.