Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava,
President & Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Appellant
versus
NARESH CHAND—Respondent
Appeal No. A-2098/SC of 1997—Decided on 9.6.2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.P. Srivastava, Advocate.
Deficiency in service by the housing authority, leading to the award of interest and compensation to the complainant.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Housing Scheme - The court found that the housing authority's failure to deliver possession of the house amounted to deficiency in service, and awarded interest and compensation to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant applied for a house in a housing scheme, deposited the required amount, and later claimed interest and compensation due to the housing authority's failure to deliver possession of the house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the housing authority's failure to deliver possession of the house constituted deficiency in service, and awarded interest at a reduced rate and compensation to the complainant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the housing authority's failure to deliver possession of the house, the complainant's claim for interest and compensation, and the validity of the housing authority's arguments regarding the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the housing authority's failure to deliver possession of the house despite completion of construction constituted deficiency in service, justifying the award of interest and compensation to the complainant.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest payable to the complainant and confirming the judgment of the District Forum with the modification of the interest rate.
Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.10.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 793/95.
2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a house in Govindpuram Housing Scheme Anukampa 1988 and deposited a sum of Rs. 17,520/- as registration money. The entire cost of the house amounting to Rs. 2,11,374/- was deposited by 30.8.1991. Thereafter, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 24,400/- as enhanced cost alongwith lease rent of Rs. 5,711/- and Rs. 1,143/- as free-hold charges till 12.6.1995. The house is not worth living as has also been indicated in the Commission’s Report dated 1.1.1996. The complainant has claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the possession is delivered to him. The opposite party in its written version has admitted that all the development work has been completed and the houses are complete in all respect. It is alleged that due to unavoidable circumstances, the possession of the house could not be delivered in time as there was a stay order of the Hon’ble High Court. The stay order of the Hon’ble High Court remained in force from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993. If the complainant wants the deposit amount refunded then the same can be returned in accordance with the terms and conditions of the brochure.
3. The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant should be given possession of the house after its development. The interest was awarded from 1.1.1994 at the rate of 18% per annum on the deposited amount. It also allowed Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. It also directed the appellant to remove the deficiencies and if the deficiencies are not removed then the amount spent by the complainant in removing those deficiencies will be payable by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. If the compliance of the order is not made within two months then the interest was to be paid at the rate of 21% per annum.
4. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that there was a stay order of the Hon’ble High Court, therefore, the possession could not be delivered in time. This plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected because the order of the Hon’ble High Court was a conditional order and it applies only if no construction work has been started. As a matter of fact, the construction work was started by the Ghaziabad Development Authority before the grant of stay by the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, this plea has no force and this proves deficiency in service on the part of the Ghaziabad Development Authority in handing over the possession of the house.
6. It has been argued by the learned Counsel that the possession letter was issued in the year 1995 but no copy of the possession letter has been filed. However, it has already come on record in the form of report of Commissioner dated 1.6.1996 that there are number of discrepancies on their part. In view of these deficiencies, it cannot be said that the house was complete in all respect. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly correct and no interference is required except about the rate of interest. The learned District Forum has also awarded 21% interest in case the compliance is not made within two months. The rate of interest is reduced to 18% per annum. With this modification the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Order
7. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the rate of interest payable shall be 18% per annum and not 24% per annum. The rest of the judgment of the learned District Forum is confirmed subject to the above modification.
8. Let compliance of this order be made within the period of tw
