Back
2010(4) CPR 156 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ashom Bhan, President and Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member
Indira Gupta (Dr.) —Petitioner
versus
Agra Development Authority —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2907 of 2006
Decided on 27.6.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr Vivek Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Ashok K Srivastava, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Housing Authority has to honour its time commitments.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 14(1)(d), 15, 17, 19 and 21—Housing—Purchase of house under hire purchase scheme—Possession of house not handed over within stipulated period despite receiving advance amount—District Forum directed respondent to refund amount of Rs. 66,000/- with 15% interest as well as compensation of Rs. 2,000/—Order of District Forum modified by State Commission—It is an admitted fact by Respondent Authority itself that it took quite long to complete development work and construction of houses—Even after several years, project could not be fully completed—Petitioner had adhered to payment schedule as stipulated by Respondent—Respondent had erred in not giving possession of house to petitioner as envisaged under Scheme—Rs. 66,000/- alongwith 15% interest be paid to Petitioner by Respondent, as ordered by District Forum within six weeks. (Paras 6, 7, 9 to 12)
Result: Petition allowed.
Vineeta Rai, Member—Petitioner who was the complainant before the District Forum and Respondent before the U P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short ‘the State Commission’) has filed the present revision petition against the order passed by the State Commission. The State Commission had modified the order of the District Forum in favour of the Agra Development Authority – ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’ ) -Respondent in this case.
2. Briefly stated the facts according to Dr Indira Gupta – Petitioner are as follows:
3. The Petitioner on 25.11.1989 had applied for an Mini Middle Income Group ( in short ‘MMIG’ ) House under a Hire Purchase Scheme of the Agra Development Authority on hire purchase basis and its initial cost as per the brochure of the Authority was Rs.1,29,296/-. On 03.12.1990, the Petitioner was informed that she was allotted a house on the basis of a draw of lots, and that the enhanced cost of the house was Rs.1,69,941/-. As per the altered schedule of payments apart from Rs.15,000/- (registration fee), she was required to pay in three installments, Rs.17,000/- each, totaling Rs.66,000/-. The balance amount, payable in 30 half-yearly installments, was to be paid after the possession of the house was given to the Petitioner. Although, Petitioner paid the required three installments, the Respondent on 19.01.1993 wrongly demanded Rs.22,818/- being the third installment along with interest of Rs.5880/-. The Petitioner in writing informed the Respondent that she had already paid this installment and therefore, nothing was due from her till she was allotted the house. Although, the possession of the house was to be handed over within a year, no development work and construction took place. Therefore, the Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on the grounds of deficiency of service against the Respondent and sought refund of the amount deposited by her (Rs.66,000/- along with interest) and also compensation totalling Rs.1,73,300/-.
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, has stated that the Petitioner was a defaulter in payment of installments and she had made no payments after 22.11.1991. The Respondent while admitting that progress had been slow, denied that no development work had taken place. It was however admitted that out of the 12 MMIG houses not constructed, one was that of the Petitioner. Default in payment of installments was stated as one of the reasons for this delay. According to the Respondent, Petitioner was not interested in taking possession of the house and falsely filed a complaint in the District Forum.
5. The District Forum, after considering the evidence filed by both the Parties accepted the complaint for the following reasons:
“It was established that inspite of the payments, of Rs.66,000/- no house was constructed even after six years from the date of registration of the house, hence, this is definite deficiency on the part of OP. Thus, in these circumstances, she is entitled to get her money refunded from OP. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund her money of Rs.66,000/- with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit. Rs.2000/- is also allowed as compensation for harassment and mental torture. This order will be complied with within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP will be liable to pay the interest @ 18% per annum on the above amount.”
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission took the view that no evidence was filed by the Petitioner (Respondent in that case) that development work had not taken place. Further, the State Commission concluded that from November 1991 to 1995, Petitioner did not file any complaint about not being given possession of her house and she was also irregular and whimsical in depositing the installments of money. The State Commission, therefore, modified the ord
