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/Respondent
versus
NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL—Respondent/ Appellant
Appeal Nos. 299/SC and 1570/SC of 1996—Decided on 30.1.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant/Respondent:Mr. Ram Raj, Advocate.
For the Respondent/Appellant:Mr. A.K. Sinha, Advocate.
Development Authority liable to pay interest for delayed construction based on contractual obligations and legal precedents.
Headnote:
Interest - Housing Scheme - 18% per annum - Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors. v. Lata Construction Company & Ors., I (1996) CPJ 81 (NC), George Thomas & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC), Surendra Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 592, Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Anr., II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=IV =2000 CTJ 205, Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Rajnish Chander Sharde, III (2000) CPJ 8 (SC)=VII =JT 2000 (8) SC 154
Fact of the Case:
Complainant applied for a house in a housing scheme, paid the entire amount, but the houses were not ready. Complainant sought refund with interest and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in construction was not due to a stay order and awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum based on precedents and legal provisions.
Issues: Delay in construction, entitlement to interest and compensation, applicability of stay order
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Development Authority was liable to pay interest for the period the amount remained deposited, and based the decision on legal precedents and provisions.
Final Decision: Appeal No. 288/SC/1996 dismissed, Appeal No. 1570/SC/1996 partly allowed with interest payable at 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President— Both these appeals have been .filed against the same judgment and order dated 23.12.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 1436 of 1993.
2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for a house in Govindpuram Housing Scheme in the year 1998, the cost of which was indicated as Rs. 70,000/-. A house was reserved for the complainant. The complainant paid the entire amount within the stipulated time as demanded by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Even till the date of filing of complaint in the year 1993 the houses were not ready. Hence the complainant has applied for refund of the amount alongwith 24% per annum interest. He has also prayed for Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental torture and Rs. 2,000/- as cost, besides Rs. 21,700/- as economic loss.
3. The opposite party has alleged in the written version that on account of the stay order of the Hon’ble High Court, there was delay in construction of the houses. This fact was beyond the control of Ghaziabad Development Authority. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation or interest.
4. The parties filed evidence before the learned District Forum, who after considering the case, directed for refund of the amount along with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost. The interest was to be paid from the date of deposit till 24.4.1991 and from 17.12.1993 to the date of refund.
5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, both the parties have come in appeal and have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum.
6 .We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that no interest from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993 has been allowed on the ground that there was stay order by the Hon’ble High Court and there was no activity regarding construction on the disputed plot. On the other hand learned Counsel for the Development Authority has argued that no interest is payable during the period of stay.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Ghaziabad Development Authority, has argued that on account of the stay order of the Hon’ble High Court the work of development was affected. This argument of the learned Counsel is not factually correct. In the writ petitions which was filed before the Hon’ble High Court, the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court is as under :
“List this petition on 30.4.1991. Meanwhile respondent shall not raise any constructions on the land in question if constructions have not already commenced.”
8. It is an admitted fact that the Ghaziabad Development Authority had started constructions over the land in dispute before the stay order was passed. Therefore, in terms of this stay order the construction which has already been started by the Ghaziabad Development Authority were not affected and the work continued. The stay order only applies to those lands over which the construction has not already commenced. Moreover, there is no plea of the Ghaziabad Development Authority that the construction has not been started. Therefore, this argument of the learned Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority cannot be accepted.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that interest at the rate of 6% per annum should only be awarded while the learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that interest at the rate of 18% per annum can be awarded. Learned Counsel for the complainant/ respondent has placed reliance on the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramaniklal Shah & Ors. v. Lata Construction Company & Ors., I (1996) CPJ 81 (NC), decided by the National Commission. In that case the possession was not delivered within the time given in the agreement. When the house was not delivered in time the National Commission found that there was a deficiency in service on behalf of M/s. Lata Construction Company and awarded i
