U.P.AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD vs PARMA NAND JAIN

THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 59/1998.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a plot in Talpura Scheme of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in two instalments in the year 1981. THE registration certificate dated 28.7.1986 was issued to the complainant after hectic efforts were made by him. THEreafter the complainant was told by the Housing Board that the scheme in which the registration has been done will not be implemented and an additional amount of Rs. 35,000/- was demanded so that a semi-finished house in Self Financing Scheme may be given to him. A sum of Rs. 35,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 6.12.1991 and got registration in the said scheme. THE remaining amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was also demanded in three tri-monthly instalments starting from September, 1992 to December, 1993. This amount was also deposited. According to the brochure, the house was to be allotted within a period of six months of the payment of the last instalment. The house was not allotted to the complainant within the time-bound period even after several visits of the complainant to the office of the local Housing Board. Thereafter the complainant by letter dated 23.6.1997 applied for refund of the deposited amount. In response to this request a sum of Rs. 3,42,000/- was refunded through a cheque in November, 1997. It is alleged that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Housing Board in not refunding the entire amount. The amount which was sent was accepted under protest. The complainant has prayed for refund of the rest of the amount alongwith 24% per annum interest.

The opposite party filed a joint written statement alleging therein that the house was to be allotted within six months of the deposit of the last instalment. The complainant was sent letters dated 19.5.1997 and 21.6.1997 to take possession of the house in dispute, but the complainant expressed his inability to take possession and demanded refund of the amount.

LEARNED District Forum, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on the part of the Housing Board. Therefore, the District Forum ordered the Development Authority to refund Rs. 8,000/- which was the remaining amount. The learned District Forum also allowed interest on Rs. 3,50,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum from 30.12.1993 till the date of payment. Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,500/- were also allowed to the complainant. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount was refunded by the Housing Board in accordance with the rules of the scheme after deducting 20% amount. The facts on record reveal that the reservation amount was deposited in the year 1981. The scheme was changed in 1990 after nine years and a house in self-financing scheme was allotted to the complainant for which the complainant made the entire payment in instalments as demanded. The last instalment was deposited on 30.12.1993. Inspite of deposit of amount in 1993 the possession of the house was not delivered to the complainant. According to learned Counsel two letters of possession were issued to the complainant for taking possession but the complainant failed to take possession of the house in dispute. According to the terms of the brochure, the Housing Board was bound to give possession within six months of the payment of the last instalment. In the present case this condition has not been satisfied by the Housing Board and a breach of this condition proved deficiency in service on the part of the Development Authority.

ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the opposite party the brochure gives power to the Housing Board to refund the amount after deducting 20% and no interest is to be paid. In the present case we have seen that the complainant was forced to seek refund of the amount for non-completion of the house and non-delivery of possession of the same to the complainant within a reasonable time stipulated in the brochure.

AS regards the issue of letters of possession dated 19.5.1997 and 21.6.1997 it will be sufficient to say that the copies of these letters were not filed before the learned District Forum and hence we are unable to rely on these possession letters. This fact has not been proved by the Development Authority, the appellant, that any letter of possession was at all issued to the complainant. Therefore, this plea of the U.P. Housing Board is against the facts which have been placed on record. Hence no reliance can be placed and it is held that no letters of possession were issued by the Housing Board to the complainant. This contention has been rightly rejected by the learned District Forum. It is an admitted fact that part of the payment has been made and the rest of the amount is to be refunded which was a subject matter of deduction by the Development Authority. No interest has been paid on the amount which has been refunded by the Housing Board. Therefore, the Housing Board saddled with the payment of interest as well as compensation and cost allowed by the learned District Forum. We do not find any reason for interfering the judgment of the learned District Forum which deserves to be confirmed. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of this appeal to the respondent. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed with costs.