UP AVAS VIKAS PARISHAD vs OM PRAKASH GOYAL

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ''Act'') against the judgment and order dated 30.12.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 131/1993.

A complaint was filed with the allegations that he was allotted a house by the appellant/opposite party under Batia Hata Residential Scheme after depositing the registration money of Rs. 7,000/- and subsequently according to the terms a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was deposited on 29.11.1985 which was the money deposited towards the additional fees and then thereafter registration money of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited on 15.2.1988. The lottery was drawn and subsequently it was informed to the complainant that he should deposit on 28.2.1989., 30.6.1989 and 31.10.1989 @ Rs. 43,000/- per insalent and then he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 44,500/- on 28.2.1990 towards the final payment. He was allotted a house. The house in question was completed in the year 1991 but the possession was not delivered. It was further alleged that due to non-availability of accommodation, he was deprived of providing the facility of marriage to his son. Consequently, the interest @ 18% was claimed for the delay committed from the date of receipt of the money to the date of delivery of possession. In the written statement the opposite party/appellant asserted that initially the registration was done after accepting Rs. 7,000/- for the allotment of a house in the higher income group and subsequently due to increase in the registration money further sum of Rs. 8,000/- was demanded. Subsequent on his own volition, the complainant on the new scheme i.e., Self Financing Scheme made a request for conversion of the registration money and then sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited. The full money was adjusted on 15.3.1993. The intimation about the tentative cost of the house i.e., Rs. 1,98,500/- was given but in time the money so demanded was not deposited. There was no delay committed in delivering the possession and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The learned District Forum vide the aforesaid impugned order passed the order against the appellant directing to pay interest @ 12% from 1.3.1991 to 17.5.1993 and also the cost of Rs. 500/- was awarded.

AGGRIEVED against the same, present appeal has been filed. We have heard Mr. Ashok Mehrotra and perused the impugned order.

IMPUGNING the impugned order, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned District Forum has erred in ignoring the pleadings made in the written statement to the effect that the respondent had made the payment towards final cost by 15.3.1993 and within 12 days i.e., on 17.5.1993 the respondent was delivered the possession letter of the house and the same was received by the respondent on the same date. Further it was submitted that there was no delay in delivering the possession of the house to the respondent and as such the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum directing to pay interest @ 12% on the amount deposited by the respondent is wholly contrary to the pleadings and merits of the case. It was further argued that rate of interest awarded in any case was too excessive. In the instant case the registration money was deposited in the year 1981 and he was allotted the house in question in the year 1992. In the instant case, it is crystal clear that a delay has already taken place since allotment of the house and till completion of the house. It is further astonishing that even there has been inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the house in question. Admittedly the construction of the house was completed in the month of March, 91 but the possession has been delivered in the month of May, 1993. The lapse of more than two years has been tried to be explained that the final costing was not done. This state of affairs of the Parishad is not acceptable and appreciable. A person who spent his hard-earned money in getting a house to live has every right to get it at the earliest. Already a delay was there of a decade since the registration to the completion of the house and even then the possession was delayed by more than two years on the pretext that the final costing was not done, this is not justified. Such finding thus in our considered view is a considered finding and is legally sustainable. No interference is needed. However, the argument of Mr. Mehrotra that interest is quite excessive is acceptable. We are of the view that normally after the final construction of the house, the possession can be delivered provided due energy is used within six months, so a period of six months is set-off for the claim of interest. The rate of interest @ 12% awarded by the learned District Forum is not sustainable in the eye of law. It should have been around 9% per annum. So to that extent the impugned order needs modification. ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The consumer/respondent is entitled for the interest from 1.10.1991 till the date of possession i.e., May, 93 @ 9% per annum on Rs. 1,98,500/-. No order as to cost of these proceedings. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.