SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President;
Sh. B.L. Anand, Member; Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Appellant
versus
MOHINI GUPTA & ANR.—Respondents
Case No. A-39/91—Decided on 12.2.1992

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. R.M. Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 & 2: Mr. S.P. Gupta, Agent.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1987 - Section 12 - Possession letter of flat delivered - Interest not paid after 23.11.1987 - Purchaser claimed interest - Section 14 -District Forum "allowed interest @ 18% p.a. - Section 15 opposite party appealed - Neither of new points entertainable in appeal- Rate of interest indeed high - Relief - Interest reduced to 15% p.a. - Whether appeal deserves to be allowed? (Yes, but in part).

       (Paras 1 & 4)

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

       

ORDER

Mr. Justice. R.N. Mittal, President— This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 29.8.91 by which D.D.A. has been directed to pay interest to the complainant on the principal amount @ 7% p.a. w.e.f. 15.6.86 to 23.11.87 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. on the interest so calculated w.e.f. 23.11.87 till the date of payment within 30 days from the date of order.

2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant got himself registered under fifth self-financing scheme 1982 for purchasing a flat. It is alleged that the possession letter of the flat was delivered to him on 23.11.87. However, he was paid interest upto 15.3.86. Consequently he prayed that the respondent be directed to pay interest upto 23.11.87, the date of issue of the letter for possession, and that further interest be paid to her from 23.11.87 till the date of payment. The complaint was contested by the respondent.

3. The learned District Forum passed the order as stated above. The first contention of Mr. Goyal is that according to the New Scheme prepared by D.D.A., the complainant was entitled to interest upto the date of issue of fifth and final demand letter not upto the date of issue of letter for possession. We have considered the argument. No such plea was taken by the appellant in the written statement and no such scheme was brought to the notice of the District Forum. At the stage of appeal the appellant cannot be allowed to raise this point. Consequently we reject his submission.

4. The second contention of Mr. Goyal is that the rate of interest from 23.11.87 till the date of payment @ 18% p.a. is on higher side. We have duly considered the argument. The learned District Forum has given interest to the complainant from 23.11.87 onwards @ 18% p.a., which indeed is high. We reduce the same to @15% p.a.

5. The last contention of the learned Counsel is that the D.D.A. could change the terms and conditions of the rate and the Forum should have taken into consideration. The change terms and conditions no such plea was taken by the D.D.A. Even the changed the conditions were not placed on the record, before the learned District Forum. Consequently no such arguments can be allowed to be made in appeal.

6. For the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the appeal and reduce the rate of interest from @ 18% to 15% p.a. No order as to costs.

Appeal partly accepted.






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top