Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President & Mrs. Sushil Paul, Member
KANWAR SOHIT—Appellant
versus
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA & ORS.—Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 612 & 613 of 1995—Decided on 30.6.1997
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. A.S. Gulia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.
A CONSUMER IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY HIM FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLOT FROM THE DATE OF EXPIRY OF THE REASONABLE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR COMPLETION OF DEVELOPMENT WORKS BY THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HUDA).
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT - SECTION 2(1)(g) - COURT HELD THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY HIM @ 18% W.E.F. 1ST MAY, 1990 I.E. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE REASONABLE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE NATIONAL COMMISSION AS WELL AS BY THIS COMMISSION IN NUMBER OF OTHER CASES.
Fact of the Case:
THE COMPLAINANT DEPOSITED THE NECESSARY AMOUNT WITH HUDA FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLOT IN URBAN ESTATE, SECTOR 7, KARNAL. HOWEVER, HUDA CANCELLED THE ALLOTMENT OF THE PLOT BY A SUBSEQUENT LETTER DATED 31ST OCTOBER, 1989 AND ON 16TH FEBRUARY, 1990 STAYED THE CANCELLATION BY ORDERING THE STATUS QUO TO BE MAINTAINED AND ON 16TH JUNE, 1990 ISSUED THE NECESSARY LETTER OF ALLOTMENT. THE COMPLAINANT RECEIVED A NOTICE BY HUDA DEMANDING A SUM OF RS. 95,545/-. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS, THE COMPLAINANT APPROACHED THE DISTRICT FORUM ALLEGING DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF HUDA IN MAKING THE ILLEGAL AND UNREASONABLE DEMAND.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY HIM @ 18% W.E.F. 1ST MAY, 1990 I.E. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE REASONABLE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE NATIONAL COMMISSION AS WELL AS BY THIS COMMISSION IN NUMBER OF OTHER CASES. THE COURT ALSO DIRECTED HUDA TO DELIVER ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PLOT TO THE COMPLAINANT WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY HIM? 2. IF SO, FROM WHAT DATE IS THE COMPLAINANT ENTITLED TO INTEREST? 3. WHAT IS THE RATE OF INTEREST THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO?
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(1)(G) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, WHICH DEFINES "DEFICIENCY" AS ANY FAULT, IMPERFECTION OR SHORTCOMING IN THE QUALITY, QUANTITY, POTENCY, PURITY OR STANDARD WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY OR UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE OR UNDER ANY CONTRACT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED OR AS IS CLAIMED BY THE MANUFACTURER IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER IN RELATION TO ANY GOODS SOLD OR DELIVERED OR AGREED TO BE SOLD OR DELIVERED OR IN RELATION TO ANY SERVICE UNDERTAKEN TO BE PERFORMED OR PROVIDED OR AGREED TO BE PERFORMED OR PROVIDED.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL AND DISMISSED HUDA'S CROSS-APPEAL. THE COURT DIRECTED HUDA TO PAY INTEREST TO THE COMPLAINANT @ 18% W.E.F. 1ST MAY, 1990 AND TO DELIVER ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PLOT TO THE COMPLAINANT WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.
Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— This order shall dispose of two appeal Nos. 612 of 1995 filed by Kanwar Sohit v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, and the cross Appeal No. 613 of 1995 filed by HUDA v. Kanwar Sohit, against the same order dated 14th August, 1995 passed by learned District Forum, Karnal.
2. Complainant-Kanwar Sohit approached District Forum, Karnal with the grievance that he was offered a residential plot in Urban Estate, Sector 7, Karnal on 19th May, 1987 and in pursuance thereto he deposited the necessary amount with HUDA as follows:
(i) Rs. 34,918/
+Rs. 1,065/
-on 3.11.1989.
(ii) Rs. 51,312/
on 28.5.1990.
(iii) Rs. 17,500/
on 1.1.1992.
(iv) Rs. 3,500/
on 6.10.1993.
(v) Rs. 16,000/
on 17.5.1990.
(vi) Rs. 15,700/
on 1.3.1994.
However HUDA cancelled the allotment of the plot by a subsequent letter dated 31st October, 1989 and on 16th February, 1990 stayed the cancellation by ordering the status quo to be maintained and on 16th June, 1990 issued the necessary letter of allotment. Though according to the complainant right from 3rd November, 1989 upto 1st March, 1994 he had been depositing the various amounts as detailed above, yet on 22nd March, 1994, he received notice by HUDA demanding a sum of Rs. 95,545/-. Ag- grieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of HUDA in making the illegal and unreasonable demand. In their written reply, HUDA pleaded that in the case of delayed payment of the amount of instalment or otherwise HUDA was certainly entitled to claim interest. The parties produced certain documents by way of evidence and after considering the same the learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the material date of allotment of the plot to the complainant should be taken as 19th May, 1987 when the offer of allotment was initially made by HUDA and not as 16th June, 1990 when it was actually made by formally issuing the letter of allotment. Proceeding on that basis the learned District Forum has directed that the complainant shall be liable to pay the amount of enhancement of compensation from the date of allotment. However, the learned District Forum has further held that the complainant was not liable to pay any interest on the delayed instalment unless possession of the plot had been offered to him.
3. In the appeal before us, learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant has fairly and frankly conceded that the correct date of allotment of the plot may be taken as 1st May, 1987 as so held by the learned District Forum, Karnal and for all purposes this date shall be taken as the date of allotment. However, it is further con- tended that the appellant is entitled to interest on the amount deposited by him @ 18% w.e.f. 1st May, 1990 i.e. after the expiry of the reasonable period of three years as held by the Hon'ble National Commission as well as by this Commission in number of other cases. Therefore, it would be from 1st May, 1990 i.e. after lapse of three years from the date of allotment the appellant shall be entitled to interest as HUDA failed to complete the necessary developments. Proceeding with the argument, the learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant further contended, that as HUDA had not handed over actual possession to the complainant he was entitled to 18% interest on the amounts deposited till the possession was actually delivered and for that it has also been prayed that direction be issued to HUDA to deliver actual physical possession of plot No. 2167-B in Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal forthwith. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned Counsel for HUDA has vehemently pleaded, that the rate of interest should be 15% and not 18% and the date of offer of possession should be taken as 31st March, 1992. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record we are of the considered view, that there is merit in the appeal filed by the complainant-appellant and the order pas
