A cooperative housing society is not liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by a member for the purchase of a flat, due to delay in possession of the flat, if the delay is not attributable to the society.

Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President— The facts of the case have been given in our judgment dated 29-1-91 by which we decided a preliminary objection of the respondent. That may be deemed to be a part of the present judgment. The/Counsel for respondent appeared before us on 3-7-91 and made a statement that he wanted to withdraw from the case as the respondents were not attending his office to give instructions. He requested for one week’s adjournment to make an application for that purpose. At his request the case was adjourned to 10-7-91. The learned Counsel on the next date of hearing moved as application that he be allowed to withdraw from the suit. We allowed him to do so. No one was present on behalf of the respondents consequently they were proceeded against exparte. A notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents informing them that they had been proceeded against ex-parte as their counsel had withdrawn from the proceedings. The respondents, however, did not appear.

2. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,24,748.10 on account of interest on the amount of Rs. 4,15,827/- from 1.1.89 to 31.8.90 @ 18% P.A. The total amount is alleged to have been deposited by him before 1.1.89. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that an assurance was given to the complainant by the respondents that the flat would be handed over to him by 31.12.88. He submits that the flat was actually delivered in September’ 90 and therefore the complainant is entitled to the interest on his amount from 1.1.89 to 1.9.90.

3. We have duly considered the arguments. It is common knowledge that the house construction work is a tedious and time consuming work. It has been seen that the house is normally not completed within the expected period. It is true, that the respondents assured the complainant that the house would be handed over to him by December’ 88. However, no fault can be found with the builder, if some more time is taken by them in completing a multi-storeyed building. We think that some allowance regarding time should be given to the respondents for completing and obtaining the completion certificate of the building. In the present case the respondents, in view of the assurance should have completed the building by the end of 1988. We allow a further period of 10 months to the respondents to complete the building. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to interest from 1.11.89 to 31.8.90.

4. Now the question arises at what rate the complainant should be awarded the interest. The Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on M.K. Gupta v. Lucknow Development Authority (First Appeal No. 21 of 1990), decided by the National Commission, reported as 1990-91 (3) MRTP Reports 98 = I (1992) CPJ 66 (NC). In that case the complainant was allowed 16% interest on the amount deposited on account of the late delivery of possession of the house by the respondent. He also referred to a case B.L. Putney and Krishna Putney v. Delhi Development Authority (Case No. C-15/1991 decided on 24.1.91) I (1991) CPJ 345, reported as, I (1991) CPJ 345 decided by this State Commission. In that case we awarded interest @ 15% p.a. In view of the observations of the National Commission we grant interest to the complainant @ 16% P.A. The total amount of interest at the said rate, for 10 months on Rs. 4,15,000/- comes to Rs. 55,333.00.

5. The complainant has claimed refund of Rs. 15,000/- .on account of use of Dana instead of Dholpur Stone and Rs. 9,500/- charged as additional amount by the Society. In paras 5 & 6 of the complaint the complainant, however, has claimed Rs. 19,000/- only. We restrict these claims to Rs. 19,000/- In the reply to the complaint, it is stated, that the Society did not make any unjust demand! from its members and the averments in the com plaint were wrong. It is true that in letter dated 25.7.88 it is mentioned that Dholpur Stone was to be used in the outer finish of the building. In order