WG. CDR.ANIL ROY vs CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE DEVT. AUTHORITY

IN this complaint, the complainant, a retired Army Officer, has sought delivery of possession of the house bearing No. MIG-MR-24, allotted to him by the opp .party -B.D. A. and also compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- towards financial loss suffered by him.

THE complainant applied to the Opp. Party for allotment of a house and along with the application paid a sum of Rs. 20,250.00 on 30/7/1982. THE Opp. Party allotted a house bearing No. MIG/MR. 24 in Nandini Layout, Bangalore. THE complainant deposited a further sum of Rs. 33,000.00 with the Opp. party on 5/10/1984. THE complainant was provided by the Opp. Party a period of 15 months from April, 1986 for payment of the balance amount. THE complainant was unable to make payment of the balance amount within that period, so he made an application with the opp. party to provide him a period of one year from July, 1987 for making payment of the balance amount. The complainant in the mean while applied for loan with the Housing Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. (H.D.F.C.) and also requested the opp. party to give the likely date of completion of the construction of the house so as to inform the same to the H.D.F.C. and to secure loan. The opp. party did not give him any information. The complainant reminded the opposite party again and again to give him the required information so as to enable him to secure loan from the H.D.F.C. The opp. party did not give any response and in consequence of which the complainant could not give the information required to the H.D.F.C. and so the H.D.F.C. by the end of December, 1988 closed the file.

The complainant thereafter applied for loan to the Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd. and sought a no objection certificate from the Opp. party so as to produce the same to the Financier. The Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd. to secure loan. The complainant in the meanwhile made further payment of a sum of Rs. 16,750.00 on 25/10/1989 to the opp. party. The complainant again on 29/4/1991 made further payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 to the opp. party.

THE Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd. sought an alienation letter to advance loan as required. THE complainant applied for alienation letter to the opp. party. By then the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the opp. party. THE opp. party did not give the alienation letter as sought for by the Fair Growth Finance Ltd. THE Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd., sanctioned the loan sought for by the complainant in a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- and sought a letter from the opp. party confirming that the apartment allotment was still valid by the month of August, 1991. THE complainant again approached the opp. party to provide him with necessary documents as required by the Financier the Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd. The opp. party finally by its letter dated 18.9.1991 as per Ex. C.37, issued alienation letter and no objection for mortgaging the said property to M/s. Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd. for the purpose of raising the loan to meet the cost of construction.

THE complainant on producing the said letter Ex. C.37 was able to secure the loan and made payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the opp. party on 27.9.1991 and requested the opp. party to issue the possession certificate to enable him to take possession of the allotted house. THE opp. party failed to issue the possession certificate and deliver possession of the house allotted to him. The complainant further averred that the house was allotted to him on 15.5.1984 for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as per E;x. C.5. But it was subsequently increased and he was called upon to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The complainant, as detailed above, did make payment of this increased sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- as well. But the opp. party failed to issue the possession certificate in his favour and to deliver possession to him. The complainant on the basis of these averments, sought the delivery of possession of the house allotted in his favour and also to pay compensation for the loss and suffering undergone by him. The opp. party filed its version admitting the fact of allotment of a house in his favour and also payment of a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- by the complainant. The main grievance made by the opp. party is that the complainant failed to pay the balance amount within the time stipulated and he was liable to pay the interest at 18% per annum on the balance amount as per notice issued to him on 16.1.1988 as per Ex. C.9. The opp. party further averred that the complainant was due in a sum of Rs. 1,03,293/- towards the interest for the delayed payment and so he was not entitled for possession of the house until he makes payment of the said amount to the opp. party. The opp. party on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed.

DURING enquiry the complainant filed his affidavit and got Exs. C.1 to C.41 marked in evidence. The opp. party did not file any affidavit or lead the evidence.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the opp. party and the complainant. WE have also perused the material on record. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the opp. party and the complainant, the only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,03,293/- towards interest for the delayed payment of the balance amount, as sought for by the opp. party for delivering possession of the house to the com-plainant ?

The fact of allotment of house bearing No. MIG/MR-24, situated at Nandini Layout, Bangalore in favour of the complainant is admitted. It is also an admitted fact that the house was allotted in favour of the complainant on 15.5.1984 as per Ex. C.6 for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/-, but subsequently the price of the said house was increased to Rs. 1,90,000/-.

IT is also an admitted fact that by the month of October, 1989, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/to the opp. party. He was seeking time from the opp. party for making payment of the balance amount so as to enable him to raise loan and make payment. It is also the material on record that the complainant applied for loan to the H.D.F.C. in the month of January 1988 itself. The opp. Party even on repeated requests by the complainant did not supply him necessary records as required by the H.D.F.C. and consequently the H.D.F.C. close the file and did not provide him any financial assistance.

THE complainant subsequently applied to the Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd., for loan. It may be mentioned here itself that in the meanwhile the complainant was requesting the opp. party to provide him some time to raise loan and make payment of the balance amount to it. When the complainant applied for financial assistance to the Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd. for loan sought the opp. party to provide him no objection certificate for mortgaging the said property to M/s. Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd. for raising loan. THE opp. party did not respond to this request of the complainant. When the complainant repeatedly requested the opposite party, the opposite party finally on 18.9.1991 gave him no objection certificate as per Ex. C.37. THE said certificate Ex. C 37 reads as under;-- Certificnte "This is to certify that Sri. Anil Ray has been allotted House No. MR.24 in Nandini Layout, the full tentative cost of the above property is Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lakh ninety thousand only) as intimated in this office allotment order No. BDA/SFHS/255/MR-24/86-87 dated 4.5-87 (Addressed to the allottee) and the possession of the house will be handed over to him on completion of all formalities. THE B.D.A. will transfer the title of the house No. MR.24 in Nandini Layout to the allottee on completion of Ten years from the date of allotment and on payment of the difference in cost, if any, due to the fixation of the final price of the same, if later. THE B.D.A. has no objection for mortgaging the said property to M/s. Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd. for the purpose of raising a loan to meet the cost of construction of building on the house purchase of the said ready-built house." Immediately on production of this certificate, the complainant secured loan from M/s. Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd., and made payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the opposite party on 27.9.91 itself. THE certificate Ex. C.37 shows that the complainant had paid the full tentative cost of the above property in a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The opposite party now is seeking payment of a further sum of Rs. 1,03,293/- from the complainant towards interest for the delayed payment. It is clear from the material as referred above, that when the complainant had sought loan from the H.D.F.C. and requested the opposite party to provide him the necessary documents to process the papers for loan, the opposite party failed to provide him the documents required. Consequently, the H.D.F.C. closed the file of the complainant and did not provide him with any financial assistance.

THE complainant thereafter made his efforts with M/s. Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd., for seeking loan. Even for that purpose the complainant sought from the opposite party to provide him no objection certificate and permission to mortgage the property to M/s. Fair Growth Home Finance Ltd., for raising loan. THE opposite party even there took its own time and finally gave a certificate as per Ex. C.37. THE complainant immediately on receipt of the funds from M/s. Fair Growth Finance Ltd. made payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the opposite party.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that this delay in making payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the opposite party by the complainant was entirely due to the negligent act on the part of the opposite party. In our opinion, having regard to these facts the opposite party has no right to claim any interest for the delayed payment of the balance amount from the complainant. If the opposite party were to concede to the request of the complainant to provide him no objection certificate for raising loan on the property, as required by the H.D.F.C, he would have made the payment of the balance amount within the stipulated period itself. But it was due to the negligent act on the part of the opposite party the complainant failed to secure loan from the H.D.F.C, and again tried with some other finance company and secured loan and as soon as he got loan he made payment of the balance amount to the opposite party. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case. We are clearly of the opinion that the opposite party is not entitled to claim any interest for the delayed payment of the amount by the complainant.

In the result, therefore, this complaint is allowed. The opposite party-B.D.A. is directed to deliver possession of the house to the complainant bearing No. MIG/MR-24 situated in Nandini Layout, Bangalore within 60 days from this day and hand over possession certificate and all other necessary documents of title to him on obtaining necessary amount from the complainant for executing lease-cum-saledeed regarding the house in favour of the complainant.

THE opposite party shall pay, in case of failure to deliver possession of the house to the complainant within a period of 60 days, as directed above, interest on the said amount of Rs. 1,90,000.00 at 18% per annum from 30/1/1995 till the date of its delivery of possession of the house to the complainant. The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 to the complainant towards costs of the proceeding. Complaint allowed with costs.