SURENDRA KUMAR SENGER vs Lucknow Development Authority

THIS complaint was filed by Sri Surendra Kumar Sainger against the Lucknow Development Authority. Briefly stated, the following are the facts contained in the complaint.

THE complainant applied for the registration of an MIG House at Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar Phase I, Lucknow after depositing a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as registration money in 1990. THE respondent, Lucknow Development Authority vide their letter dated 7.2.1991 informed the complainant that he had been registered for the aforesaid scheme on cash down payment. Again the respondent vide their letter dated 20.9.1991 informed the complainant that an MIG Duplex House has been allotted in his name in Viram Khand and the estimated cost of the house was Rs. 2,95,000/-. He deposited a further amount (of Rs. 20,000/- on 28.2.1991. He was also asked to pay the first instalment before 30.9.1991. THE second instalment was to be deposited by 30.11.1991. Each instalment was to comprise of Rs. 1,27,500/- and in default an interest at the rate of 16% was to be charged and in case the said instalments were not paid within three months alongwith penal interest, allotment of the house was to be cancelled. THE complainant received a letter dated 20.9.1991 in February, 1992 after expiry of the date of deposit of the instalment. On this, the Development Authority asked the complainant to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- by 15.2.1992. In July, 1993 when the complainant contacted the Joint Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority, he was directed to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 13,469.59P. being the amount of interest as the complainant has failed to deposit the instalment in time, i.e. by 30.12.1991. This amount was also deposited by the complainant in favour of Lucknow Development Authority. Copies of challans through which all these amounts were deposited in the United Commercial Bank of India, Lucknow have also been annexed by the complainant. THE complainant then approached the opposite party to execute sale deed and transfer of possession in his favour which the Lucknow Development Authority failed to do. THE complainant was surprised to receive an intimation from the opposite party (Lucknow Development Authority) vide their letter dated 23.1.1996 intimating that the estimated cost of the house which was already allotted in his favour in 1991 had been increased to Rs,. 3,76,800/- and the complainant was required to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,07,272.41 P. by 1.4.1996. THE complainant represented the Lucknow Development Authority that as against the estimated cost of the house which was Rs. 2,95,000/-, he had already deposited Rs. 3,08,469.59 and after a period of more than three years, during which period he has been pressing hard to get the sale deed executed in his favour and to transfer the possession of the house, he has been asked to pay an amount of Rs. 3,76,800/- against the estimated price of Rs. 2,95,000/-. The complainant has also stated that the brochure of the scheme clearly reveals that in case of allotment on cash down basis, the payment was to be made in six months'' time from the date of allotment and the possession of the house was to be delivered as soon as the entire payment including other expenses incurred during registration was made. The applicant deposited the entire amount alongwith penal interest as per the condition laid down in the brochure, but was not given possession of the house and other formalities in regard to the execution of the sale deed etc. were also not done inspite of his requests. It has also been stated that the complainant made enquiries on the spot and found that the said house has been rented out by the officials of opposite party to outsiders. In the process, the opposite parties have retained the amount deposited by the complainant as back as 14.3.1992 and also the interest demanded later on, without being physically given possession of the house, resulting into deprivation of the house duly allotted to him, rental loss, mental agony and harassment. The complainant has demanded from the Lucknow Development Authority (1) grant of possession of the house; (2) Quashing the escalated amount of Rs. 1,07,272/-; (3) 20% interest from 14.3.1992 on the amount deposited by the complainant; (4) damage for the mental agony and harassment of Rs. 50,000/-; (5) damage for deficiency in service amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The complaint was filed by the Attorney Holder of the complainant Sri Rajendra Kumar Tewari. True copy of the Power of Attorney has been annexed.

THE opposite party No. 1, Lucknow Development Authority and No. 2, the Joint Secretary of the same Authority, were informed vide registered post to appear and file written statement against the case of the complainant. Inspite of the notice issued under registered post, the opposite parties failed to appear on 20.11.1997. Another opportunity was given to the opposite parties, but again on 9.1.1998 they did not appear and, therefore, the case was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte against them. We have gone through the evidence on record. Documents filed by the complainant prove that registration money amounting to Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by him on 17.3.1990. Lucknow Development Authority''s notice dated 4.4.1993 clearly proves that a ''B'' type Duplex House No. 5/480 was allotted to him by a lottery draw and estimated cost was to be Rs. 2,95,000/-. Payment already made till that date was Rs. 2,95,000/-. THE rest amount was paid by the complainant was as penal interest. THE allotment intimation sent by Lucknow Development Authority, which is Annexure No. 3 of the complainant, amply proves this fact that the property in question had been allotted to him. Inspite of the fact that the entire money asked for by the Lucknow Development Authority in accordance with the allotment letter has been deposited by the complainant his requests time and again made to Lucknow Development Authority for execution of sale deed and transfer of possession were not headed to. Even a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code was given to the Lucknow Development Authority, but the notice also was not heeded to. THE complainant had deposited the entire amount including the penal interest from period 13.10.1990 to 14.7.1993. According to the terms of brochure, the property in question was to be allotted on payment of the dues. THE property was not allotted inspite of requests made several times and instead the opposite party, after 2 years, issued a letter to the complainant asking for a further amount of Rs. 1,07,272/-. It is not understood as to how the cost which was originally Rs. 2,95,000/- had shot up by an additional amount of Rs. 1,07,272/- when the possession could have been delivered to the complainant immediately after 14.2.1993 when the entire dues were deposited. It appears that the complainant was not deliberately given the possession of the house and the Authority utilised the amount deposited for their own purpose which is actually the money handed over to them for possession of house No. 5/480, Viram Khand.

LEARNED Counsel Mr. P.N. Sharma has also been heard in this case who has argued the case at length in favour of the complainant. He has also argued that, in addition to the relief asked for in the original complaint, a rental loss of Rs. 3,000/- per month as also occurred to the complainant. Our attention has also been drawn to the ruling given by the National Commission in case Sanjay Nagar Residents'' Welfare Association v. Vice Chairman, GDA, II (1995) CPJ 58 (NC), (case decided on 11.1.1995) in which it has been held that allottees were in dire need of the houses and the same has been withheld with a view to force them for payment of additional amount on account of escalation which amounted to unfair trade practice. In view of what has been discussed above, we agree with the contention of complainant that the action of the opposite parties in demanding the alleged escalation after 2 years of the allotment of the property, is distinctly the deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice as the said escalation was not asked for at relevant time from the date of the deposit of the registration amount on 13.10.1990 to 14.10.1993 till the date the entire money was deposited for the property in question. After 2 years, suddenly asking for the escalated amount was a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the absence of any records, it can clearly be said that in case the possession had been handed over to the complainant in July, 1993, when he had deposited the entire amount, he would have got the house without any escalation for which the complainant is not responsible. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the possession of the property 5/480 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar should be delivered to the complainant and adequate reliefs for the miseries and agony that the complainant has undergone, alongwith financial loss need to be compensated. ORDER The complaint is allowed. It is directed that : (1) Lucknow Development Authority shall deliver the possession of House No. 5/480, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow within a period of six weeks to the complainant for which he has already made payment and no further charges shall be levied except the charges which are required to be paid in terms of execution of sale deed and the formalities relevant to that. (2) The complainant will also be paid within 6 weeks an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the Lucknow Development Authority as rental loss with effect from 14.3.1992. (3) The complainant will also be paid Rs. 15,000/- within 6 weeks'' time as compensation for mental agony. (4) Rs. 5,000/- for cost of proceedings within 6 weeks time.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint allowed with costs.