Sidhartha Kunj Co -Operative Group Housing Society Ltd vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

IN this complaint filed on 15.12.1995 the complainant a Co -operative Group Housing Society has claimed Rs. 54,77,000/ - towards interest on the deposits and damages made by it and further interest at the rate of 18 per cent on this amount till realisation. Details of the claim are as under : ''(i) Interest on Rs. 5,00,000/ - deposited on 15.10.1990 with respondent as earnest money at the rate of 18 percent p.a. w.e.f. 15.10.1990 to 25.3.1991 Rs. 40,700/ - (ii) Interest at the rate of 18 percent p.a. w.e.f. 25.3.1991 to 27.5.1993 on second instalment Rs. 31,68,750/ - plus Rs. 5,00,000/ - earnest money total Rs. 36,68,750/ - comes to Rs. 14,03,700/ - (iii) Interest at the rate of 18 percent p.a. w.e.f. 8.7.1994 to 10.1.1995 for delayed possession on total deposit of Rs. 2,14,58,450/ - Rs. 19,31,300/ - (iv) Interest at the rate of 18 percent p.a. w.e.f. 10.1.1995 to 10.9.1995 on the excess amount of Rs. 8,43,961/ - comes to Rs. 1,01,300/ - (v) Damages/compensation for delayed possession and due to wrong allotment of plot and delay in change of plot due to which the complainant society and its members suffered great mental and physical torture and financial losses which are assessed as Rs. 20,00,000/ - Total : Rs. 54,77,000/ -.'' Alleged claim has arisen as plot of land which was earlier allotted to the complainant there was certain encroachment and thereafter steps were taken to allot a new piece of land. At the time of allotment of this new plot there was a undertaking given by the complainant -Society to the DDA wherein it was categorically stated that : ''the society will not claim any interest/damage on account of delay in handing over the plot No. 17, Sector -7, Pappan Kalan (Dwarka) Phase -I by DDA to the society provided the possession of the said plot is given as early as possible.'' Within couple of days of this undertaking given by the Society offer was made to the Society for allotment of plot mentioned in the undertaking and admittedly possession was given on 10.1.1995. Thereafter, having taken possession Society gave a notice to the opposite party DDA on 20.10.1995 demanding Rs. 54,77,000/ - and thereafter this complaint was filed. When we put it to Mr. Asthana, learned Counsel for the complainant -Society as to how Society could make the claim as stated in the complaint after the undertaking was given to the DDA and thereafter possession taken. He said undertaking was given under pressure otherwise DDA would not have given possession of the plot in question. We asked him to go through his notice dated 20.10.1995 and also to the complaint and tell us where it has been mentioned that undertaking was given under any pressure or coercion. He has been unable to point out. But he says that he took up this plea in rejoinder. We reject this stand taken by the complainant that the aforesaid undertaking was under any pressure or even under bona fide mistake. The whole claim is based on wrong premise. This complaint has no merit and it is dismissed with cost which we assess at Rs. 5,000/ -. Complaint dismissed with costs. -