National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Col. R.N. Kalra on 28 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2007)CPJ267(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant, Col. R.N. Kalra had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GDA).
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant made an application on 17.1.91 for purchasing of one H.I.G. house under self-financing scheme and deposited the required amount on 28.12.91. He was informed that he has been allotted one house, approximate cost of which was Rs. 2,05,000 which was to be paid as per the instalment plan. It was the case of the complainant that he deposited the entire amount, yet the possession was not given to him. It is only some time on 20.9.1994 that the complainant got information that a letter has been issued by the appellant GDA calling upon him to obtain possession of the allotted house. There is also reference that this letter was sent to complainant's old address and upon redirection, complainant received this letter on 11.10.1994. Upon scrutiny of this letter it revealed that offer of possession is for MIG house instead of HIG house. It was subsequently corrected by letter dated 14.11.1994. When the complainant visited the site for taking the possession in early 1995, he found that no development had taken place of the area which was brought to the notice of the appellant and also that the construction of the allotted house also had not been completed. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund deposited amount along with interest @18% p.a. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.
We heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. It is an admitted position that the principal amount has been refunded to the respondent/complainant some time in the year 2005 but no interest has been paid.
4. It was the case of the complainant that they are keen to have the house allotted to them, thus, vide our order dated 4.12.2006 we directed the appellant to ascertain if they can deliver the possession of an HIG flat alongwith interest @12% from the date of deposit till the date of possession in the same locality or in adjoining locality. On instructions from the appellant, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant stated that since the money has already been refunded, allotment of house is not possible. In these circumstances, in our view, what remains is the rate of interest payable to the complainant.
5. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that these days Hon'ble Supreme Court is awarding interest @ 9% or at the most 12% and she relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1598 of 2005 decided on 15.2.2007, wherein interest @12% p.a. granted by MRTP Commission was upheld. We have seen this order as also the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GDA. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC) : Civil Appeal No. 7173 of 2002 decided on 17.3.2004, wherein it was held that grant of interest @ 18% p.a. shall depend on the fact of each case. While referring to Civil Appeal No. 7224/2002, this is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to say:
In Civil Appeal No. 7224 of 2002 the respondent had applied for a house in a Scheme floated in 1992. He had paid the entire cost. He had been allotted a flat and issued a reservation letter. Yet no possession was given. Thereafter, in 1996 the respondent was informed that for unavoidable reasons the house had been allotted to somebody else and if he desires, he can obtain an alternate flat at a much higher price. This therefore is also a case where absolutely no justifiable reason why the party has not been delivered possession of the flat which had been allotted to him nor has any offer been made to return his money with interest. Instead the body has asked the party to apply for an alternate flat at a higher rate. In our view, on these facts the award of interest at the rate of 18% is justified. It is not just interest on the amount invested but is also compensation for the harassment and agony caused to the allottee. We have given these two incentives only by way of illustrations.
6. The facts in the case are also similar, wherein the complainant was allotted an HIG house, full payment was made in time, yet possession of complete house along with necessary developments were never given. The State Commission after hearing both the parties held,"...in this case GDA could not establish as to why they could not hand over the possession of the fully developed house to the complainant in appropriate time...". It remains unrebutted. It could not be the intention of the public authority to force a consumer to take possession of an incomplete-constructed house in undeveloped area. The offer of possession itself appears, at best, to be ill-conceived.
7. Keeping in view the facts of each of the cases (supra), in our view, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GDA v. Balbir Singh, shall have relevance keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case before us.
8. At this stage a new plea is sought to be introduced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that area could not be developed because of some stay by the Hon'ble High Court. We have seen the order of the State Commission as also the Memo of Appeal filed by the appellant. There is not even a remote reference to this plea. Since this is not part of the pleadings, in our view, they are estopped from raising a new plea, which was never part of the pleadings or grounds of appeal.
9. In the aforementioned circumstances, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GDA v. Balbir Singh (supra) we see no ground to interfere with the State Commission granting interest @ 18% p.a., in view of which we find that this appeal has no merit, hence dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay the awarded/due amount on account of interest within a period of six weeks from the passing of the order failing which the respondent/complainant shall be free to proceed under Sections 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. No order as to costs.