Back
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal,
President & Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member
MATESHWAR PRASAD—Complainant
versus
D.D.A. THROUGH CHAIRMAN—Respondent
Case No. C-178 of 1992—Decided on 11.5.1994
For the Complainant :Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.C. Varshney & Mr. R.M. Goyal, Advocates.
The court allowed interest to the complainant based on the unjustified delay in possession, as established in a similar case.
Headnote:
Interest - Self Financing Scheme - The court allowed interest to the complainant on the amount deposited for the flat at a rate of 14% per annum, based on a similar case where delay in possession was not justified by internal disputes between the authority and the contractor.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was allotted a flat under the Self Financing Scheme and deposited the balance amount within the prescribed period. However, possession of the flat was delayed, leading to the complainant seeking interest and damages for mental harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in possession was not justified by internal disputes between the authority and the contractor, and allowed interest to the complainant but disallowed damages for mental harassment.
Issues: Delay in possession, entitlement to interest, and damages for mental harassment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by a similar case where delay in possession was not justified by internal disputes, leading to the allowance of interest to the complainant.
Final Decision: The complaint was accepted, and the respondent was directed to pay the amount of interest within a specified period, failing which action would be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—Briefly, the facts are that the complainant was registered under Self Financing Scheme (SFS) for allotment of a flat. He was issued allotment-cum-demand letter by the DDA and asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 26,984/-, on 4.1.88. The balance amount was deposited by him on 2.2.88. It is alleged, that he completed all the formalities within the prescribed period, however, the possession letter was issued to him on 24.2.89 and the possession of the flat was given to him on 17.3.90. Consequently he has prayed that he may be allowed the interest on the amount and granted damages for the mental harassment.
2. It is not necessary to dilate upon this matter as a similar case came up before the National Commission in Lucknow Development Authority v. Roop Kishore Tandon, II (1992) CPJ 503 (NC).
3. The facts of that case were identical with those of the present case. The plea of the DD A in that case was that the dispute arose between the DDA and the contractor, the latter went to the Court and consequently the possession could not be delivered to the complainant. The learned National Commission observed that existence of any dispute between the appellant and the contractor was purely an internal matter between them and it cannot be considered a valid ground for the delay in delivery of the possession to the allottee. Consequently it granted in terest @ 14 % p.a. on the amount of price deposited by the complainant.
4. In view of the said ratio we allow interest to the complainant from 24,3,89 till 16,3,90. on the amount of Rs. 1,97,400/- @ 14% p.a.
5. The complainant has also claimed damages for mental harassment. No such amount was granted in that case. Therefore, we dis allow the same.
6. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct the responded to pay the amount of interest as indicated above within a period of three months from the date of the order, failing which action shall be taken against them a/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1,500/-.
Complaint accepted.
___
