Vinod Chandra Srivastav vs Ansal Housing And Construction Ltd. And Anr.

THE petitioner/complainant had applied for a house is Ashiana Scheme of the respondent/Opposite Party. An agreement under Plan A'' regarding payment of instalment was entered into between the parties on 8.9.1989 for purchase of partially built House No. 411 (A) called Shagoofa in Sector M at Ashiana Colony. The house number was later changed to M -71. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,800 and Rs. 27,342 on 8.8.1989; Rs. 19,428 on 4.8.1990 and Rs. 4,043 on 17.7.1991. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 52,613 was paid by the complainant. As per agreement, the respondent was supposed to complete the house by end of December, 1991, that is to say, after more than 4 yeas from the development of Mini City in 1988. The case of the complainant is that on 23.2.1991 it was found that the progress of the construction was very slow. Since there was no progress in the construction, the complainant built his house at Kanpur after taking loan from LIC, GPF funds, etc. The complainant received a letter dated 5.10.1995 from the respondent regarding completion of house and for taking possession on payment of Rs. 1,77,311.59. The complainant sought refund which was not accepted to by the respodent. Accordingly, the complainant approached District Consumer Forum for direction to the respondent to pay the said sum of Rs. 52,613 with 18% interest thereon from the date of payment till the amount is finally paid; Rs. 10,000 spent by the complainant for getting sanction of loan of Rs. 1,50,000 from HDFC and Rs. 25,000 as compensation for physical and mental agony.

THE District Forum found that the respondent had prolonged the construction of the house till 1995 which was required to be completed by 1991 and came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, the District Forum awarded sum of Rs. 52,613 by way of compensation -cum -damages with 18% per annum interest w.e.f. 17.7.1991 until payment and cost of Rs. 2,000. The other reliefs were refused.

THE judgment of District Forum was challenged by the respondent before the State Commission. No appeal was filed by the complainant. The State Commission found that the only controversy raised was claim of interest on the amount of Rs. 52,613. The State Commission also found that the dispute revolved around delay attributed to the respondent in raising project and completing the same in time. Accordingly, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the respondent was deficient in service. It was also found by the State Commission that the entire amount deposited by the complainant has admittedly been refunded to him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest was reduced from 18% to 10% per annum. The complainant filed revision claiming 18% compound interest; Rs. 1,500 which was paid as administrative fees for sanction of loan by HDFC and expenditure of Rs. 8,500 in getting the said loan sanctioned and that payment of Rs. 52,613 at the end of March, 2002 should be treated as part payment of interest. Besides this, the complainant has also claimed in revision compensation of Rs. 25,000 for physical stress, mental agony and cost of litigation of Rs. 30,000.

NO appeal had been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum which had refused all other reliefs and had ordered only payment of Rs. 52,613 with 18% interest thereon. Therefore, the complainant cannot be permitted to raise claims beyond the relief granted by the District Forum which had attained finality vis -a -vis the complainant.

THUS , the short controversy which has to be decided in this revision is as to what should be the rate of interest on the sum of Rs. 52,613 which has been refunded to complainant in March, 2002.

DR . Anjali Srivastav, daughter of the petitioner argued on behalf of the petitioner and submitted before us that there was no justification for the State Commission to reduce interest awarded by the District Forum; that the loan obtained by the complainant from HDFC had lapsed due to fault of the petitioner which had been sanctioned at 14.5% interest. She filed detailed arguments as also judgments of the Apex Court on award of interest.

ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted before us that the interest @ 10% awarded by the State Commission is in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161 and HUDA v. Raj Singh Rana, III (2008) CPJ 71 (SC)=VIII (2008) SLT 103.

IT is now well settled by the Apex Court that there is no hard and fast rule about how much interest should be granted and it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case under consideration, the house in question was to be completed by December, 1991 and the complainant on finding slow progress of construction, built a house at Kanpur. For the said house, a loan of Rs. 1,30,000 was sanctioned by LIC on 16.7.1992. This shows that the complainant was no longer intersted in the house which was to be built by the respondent. Instead of seeking refund, the complainant kept on waiting and it was only after letter dated 5.10.1995 which was received by the complainant for payment of Rs. 1,77,311.59, he sought refund of the amount deposited by him. The complainant through Counsel sent a notice to the respondnet on 6.12.1995 for refund after receipt of the said letter. The petitioner is, therefore, himself partly responsible in seeking refund with delay. It is clear from paragraph 22 of the complaint that the complainant was no longer in need of a house at Lucknow. The complainant got sanction of loan from HDFC vide letter dated 30.8.1990. Admittedly, only a sum of Rs. 4,043 was paid on 17.7.1991, that is to say, after obtaining the said loan. In fact, no substantial demand for payment had been made by the respondent so as to justify the action of the complainant for getting sanction of loan of Rs. 1,50,000 from HDFC on 30.8.1990.

TAKING the above mentioned factors into account, we are of the opinion that the interest of 10% awarded by the State Commission is just and fair and the same does not call for any interference whatsoever in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.