AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant/petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 13,000 on 28.1.1985 for allotment of house in Self -Financing Scheme at Kamla Nagar, Agra. The complainant gave her consent for draw. Subsequently, the Opposite Party sought her consent for Sikandra Scheme instead of Kamla Nagar Scheme. The complainant gave her consent on 31.12.1985 for Sikandra Scheme. The opposite party issued Registration Certificate on 28.11.1987 for semi -finished house in Sikandra Scheme. The cost of the house was enhanced to Rs. 1,59,500 from previous cost of Rs. 1,25,000 of Kamla Nagar Scheme. The complainant deposited Rs. 37,000 on 26.12.1987, Rs. 37,000 on 30.4.1988 and Rs. 37,000 on 31.8.1988. The remaining amount of Rs. 35,500 was deposited by the Complainant on 31.12.1988 and the total amount deposited by the complainant came to Rs. 1,59,500. On 18.2.1992, House No. 331, Type -II was allotted to the complainant in Sikandra Scheme. The opposite party demanded additional amount of Rs. 864 as penal interest and Rs. 4, 588 as lease rent which was deposited and vide letter dated 13/27.4.1992 asked the opposite party to give possession of the house and the same was given on 8.7.1993. According to the complainant, the house, in question, was in dilapidated condition. Deed of transfer of property was executed on 13.2.1995. According to the complainant the material used was sub -standard and there were other deficiencies.
THE respondent denied that there were deficiencies and since instalments were not paid in time, penal interest was charged.
THE District Forum observed that though the complainant had deposited the cost of the house in instalments from 1985 till 1988, yet possession of the house was given only on 8.7.1993. The District Forum, thus, found that there was deficiencies in service since the possession of the house was given after a long interval due to which the complainant was entitled to get interest from the dates from which the deposits were made. The District Forum, therefore, ordered the opposite party to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 13,000 and 9% on the rest of the deposited amount. The opposite party had filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal by giving following reasons: "....The argument is that in the circumstances when an allotment could be made, the complainant herself has given consent for having semi -finished house because no allotment was made earlier to the allottee and further she was liable to pay penal interest and lease rent and ultimately on 8.7.1993 possession of the house was given to her and after that sale deed was executed and registered. After execution of the sale deed and agreement between the parties there remains no dispute. There is force in the argument. The appeal is liable to be allowed."
WE have heard husband of the petitioner who appeared in person and learned Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner emphasised that the District Forum after having analysed the entire matter had ordered payment of interest on the amount deposited by the Complainant and there was no reason whatsoever for the State Commission to have interfered with the same. Learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that the complainant had opted for new scheme under which house was allotted and as such she was not entitled to any interest.
IN our opinion, the grievance of the petitioner is well founded. The District Forum after elaborate reasoning had come to the conclusion that there was considerable delay in allotment and giving possession of the house to the complainant. The complainant had initially paid a sum of Rs. 13,000 on 21.8.1985 for Self -Financing Scheme at Kamla Nagar, Agra. However, subsequently, the opposite party sought consent of the complainant in the year 1985 for Sikandra Scheme. Thereafter, complainant paid various amounts till 1988 totalling Rs. 1,59,500. The house under Sikandra Scheme was allotted only on 8.2.1992 and possession was given on 8.7.1993. The complainant had, thus, to wait for the possession of the house for almost 8 years from the date of first deposit of Rs. 13,000. The money deposited by the complainant remained blocked for no fault of hers and the District Forum had very rightly come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for such long delay in allotment and possession of the house. The State Commission did not consider the matter in the right perspective and by slip shod reasoning set aside the order of the District Forum. The District Forum had rejected the other claims of the complainant on the ground that there was no proof that possession of the house was given in dilapidated condition or there was deficiencies in the house. The claimant had, in fact, claimed a sum of Rs. 2,74,517. The complainant had not filed any appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. Therefore, she cannot in revision get more than what was awarded by the District Forum.
IN view of the above, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. Costs shall be borne by the Respondents which are fixed at Rs. 5,000. R.P. allowed.