Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Capt. B.K. Gupta and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.890 of 2015 and First Appeal No.34 of 2016
Decided on 27.10.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants in (FA No.890 of 2015):Mr. Vivek Jain, Advocate with Mr. Manish Shekhari, Advocate
For the Appellants in (FA No.34 of 2016):Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Capt. B.K. Gupta : In person
IMPORTANT POINT
Interest on booking amount for delay in delivery of House due to land acquisition dispute justified.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 19 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 41]—Housing—Delay in delivery of bungalow—Interest on booking amount—Legality of—Complainant booked a house in year 2004—However, possession was delivered in year 2012—In year 2005, Housing Board had given an option to complainant to either take refund with interest or to agree to the actual costing to be incurred in future construction—Complainant did not seek refund and continued with booking—This indicates that complainant was even ready to incur higher cost at the time of actual construction—Whatever delay has happened, has been due to land acquisition dispute which was beyond the control of Housing Board—Impugned order of State Commission, whereby awarding interest @ 12 % p.a. on booking amount held not justified—Direction issued. (Paras 7 to 10)
Result: Order accordingly.
ORDER
First Appeal No.890 of 2015 has been filed by the appellant Rajasthan Housing Board against the order dated 08.07.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.58 of 2014. First Appeal No.34 of 2016 has been filed by the appellant Capt. B.K.Gupta against the order dated 08.07.2015 of the State Commission, Rajasthan, passed in CC No.58 of 2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Capt. B.K.Gupta had booked a house under the Raj Aangan Scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board reserved for NRIs for total sale consideration of Rs.24,47,500/-. On 13.5.2004 a cheque for Rs.2,44,750/- i.e. 10% of the cost of the house was paid at the time of booking. The rest of the cost was to be paid in four instalments. The second instalment i.e. 22.5% of the sale price was to be paid within one month of the commencement of the construction of bungalow and balance three instalments each of 22.5% of the sale price were to be paid at the six months interval thereafter. As per the original agreement executed between the parties, the possession was to be delivered within thirty months from the date of reservation. The Housing Board vide letter dated 12.08.2005 informed the respondent that there was encroachment on the land on which the bungalow of the complainant was to be constructed and complainant was given two options either to bear the escalated cost of the actual future construction or as per the clause 18 of the general terms and conditions take the refund of the amount deposited with interest and cancel the allotment. The complainant by a letter and fax objected to the letter dated 12.08.2005 and informed the Board not to cancel the allotment and protested the increased possible demand of cost for construction. The physical possession of the land was obtained by the Rajasthan Housing Board on 16.01.2011. The Reservation letter was issued in favour of the complainant on 15.03.2011. The allotment was issued vide letter dated 28.05.2012. The possession was handed over to the complainant on 30.5.2012. The complainant filed a Consumer Complaint no.58/2014 for compensation under various heads including interest on the booking amount for the delay in giving possession. The State Commission on 08.07.2015 partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay interest @ 12 % p.a. on the initial deposited amount of Rs.2,44,750/- from the date of deposit till the date of actual allotment letter dated 28.05.2012 and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission both these appeals have been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant Rajasthan Housing Board in FA No.890 of 2015 stated that the State Commission has not accepted various allegations made by the complainant, still the State Commission has ordered the Housing Board to pay interest @12% per annum on the booking amount of Rs.2,44,750/- to the complainant from the date of payment of this amount till the date of the allotment letter viz 28.5.2012. Learned counsel stated that as early as in the year 2005, the complainant was informed vide letter dated 12.08.2005 that the project is getting delayed and Housing Board will not be in a position to deliver the possession at the cost on the date of booking and therefore, under Clause 18 of the General Conditions, the complainant may either seek refund along with interest or may furnish an undertaking that he agreed to pay the actual cost incurred by the Housing Board at the time of future construction. The complainant did not seek refund and continued with the booking. Thus, the complainant has committed himself to any increased cost actually incurred by Rajasthan Housing Board for the construction of the said house. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Housing Board that in fact in the year 2007, the Board pass
