National Consumer Disputes Redressal
B.S. Sharma vs M.P. Housing Board & Anr. on 2 March, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 25/06/2010 in Complaint No. 13/2010 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) 1. B.S. SHARMA R/o.60/1, Shanti Niketan Govindpura Bhopal Madhya Pradesh ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M.P. HOUSING BOARD & ANR. Madhya Pradesh Grih Nirman Mandal, Paryawas Bhawan Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 2. THE ESTATE OFFICER Madhya Pradesh Grih Nirman Mandal, Division No.6, E-5, Arera Colony Bhopal Madhya Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : IN PERSON For the Respondent : MR. D.K. SINGH
Dated : 02 Mar 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.06.2010 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, 'the State Commission') in Execution Application No. 13/2010 - B.S. Sharma Vs. M.P. Housing Board by which, interest was allowed for a period of 18 months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that OP/Respondents advertised houses for allotment and complainant/appellant applied for house and was successful bidder. Complainant deposited Rs.21,87,000/- on 27.12.2005 and possession was to be given by December, 2006, but it was not given upto March, 2010. It was further submitted that complainant earlier filed complaint which was allowed by learned State Commission by order dated 31.3.2006 and OP was directed to pay 8% p.a. interest for the period amount remained deposited till date of possession of house. This order was challenged by complainant in Appeal No. 777/2008 filed before this Commission and appeal was dismissed vide order dated 5.5.2008. Complainant filed execution application before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed interest for a period of 18 months against which, this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard appellant in person and learned Counsel for respondent and perused record.
4. Appellant submitted that he was entitled to get interest for a period of 36 months and learned State Commission has committed error in granting interest only for 18 months; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that appellant was entitled to interest for 11 months whereas interest for 18 months has been paid; hence, appeal be dismissed.
5. Perusal of record reveals that complainant deposited full amount of Rs.21,87,000/- on 27.12.2005 and as per impugned order possession of house was to be given in December, 2006. Respondent filed reply to memo of appeal in which it was submitted that possession of house was to be given as per construction agreement by June, 2007. It was further submitted that as contractor delayed progress his contract was rescinded on 30.6.2008 and revised schedule for handing over possession was prepared and house was to be completed by May, 2009, but it was handed over in April, 2010; so, there was delay of only 11 months. It was further submitted that last instalment was also payable in May, 2009.
6. As per impugned order possession was to be given in December, 2006, but as per reply to the memo of appeal possession was to be given by June, 2007, in such circumstances, it can very will be presumed that possession was to be given latest by June, 2007, whereas possession has been given in April, 2010. Learned State Commission in second paragraph wrongly observed that 18 months' period was to be granted for construction of house and after deducting 18 months interest was allowed only for 18 months whereas as per construction agreement possession was to be given by June, 2007. Thus, it becomes clear that there was delay of 33 months in handing over possession and appellant was entitled to get interest for a period of 33 months instead of 18 months and learned State Commission committed error in allowing interest only for 18 months. Merely because contract with earlier contractor was rescinded by respondent and revised schedule for completing house by May, 2009 was prepared, respondent is not absolved from making payment of interest as ordered earlier by State Commission which has attained finality.
7. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and order dated 25.6.2010 passed by learned State Commission in Execution Application No. 13/2010 - B.S. Sharma Vs. M.P. Housing Board is partly modified and respondent is directed to pay 8% p.a. interest for a period of 33 months instead of 18 months as granted by learned State Commission. Parties to bear their own cost.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER