National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ramesh Kumar Dua vs Ghaziabad Authority on 20 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ96(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Ghaziabad Development Authority (G.D.A.).
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent, GDA floated a scheme for allotment of flats/house under "Hastinapuram Housing Scheme--Ashirwad Expendable Houses", sometime in middle 1991. The potential applicants were directed to deposit certain amount and register for allotment, at different Banks mentioned in the scheme itself, which beside other included Oriental Bank of Commerce, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi. The complainant paid the requisite registration amount following the instructions in para 5 of the brochure (which is on record) and the appellant also kept on depositing the instalments demanded from time-to-time and, in all, deposited an amount of Rs. 2,50,018. But since no allotment was being given the matter was taken-up with the respondent and it transpired that the respondent has abandoned the Scheme and when refund was sought by the appellant/complainant, the GDA after protracted correspondences refunded the amount along with interest @ 5% p.a. upto March 1996. The appellant was not satisfied with this and wanted higher rate of interest as well as other compensation based on which a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint holding that the State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. There is no dispute that the prospectus was purchased and application was made in prescribed form, along with 10% of the cost of the house in the prescribed authorised Bank, i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi, appearing in para 5(6) in the brochure, which is located in Delhi. The deposited amount has also been refunded to the complainant in Delhi. Thus, in our view, the cause of action arose in 'part' in Delhi, for the simple reason that the Oriental Bank of Commerce, located in Delhi issued the brochure, accepted the form and money being the agent of the respondent, GDA. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the view that action in part arose in Delhi and in view of the provisions of Section 11(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Delhi State Commission shall have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the case.
4. Coming to the merits of the case, there is no disputing the fact that the appellant/complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,50,018 with the opposite party, which has since been refunded along with interest @ 5% p.a. upto March 1996. There is no disputing the fact that the Scheme has been abandoned. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh 11 (2004) CPJ 12 (SC), decided on 17.3.2004, when a scheme is cancelled, irrespective whether there had been genuine reason to cancel the scheme or not, the complainant shall be entitled to refund of amount along with interest @18% from the date monies were deposited till the time they were retained by them. Operative part of the order is as under:
21. In a scheme known as "Karpuripuram Scheme" plots were allotted, monies collected. However, thereafter the Scheme was cancelled. In some of the matters we have seen that the District Forum has recorded that the authority could give no explanation as to why the Scheme was cancelled. Before us some sort of explanation is sought to be given. In our view, irrespective of whether there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies must be returned with interest at the rate of 18%. We say so because it is clear that even if the Body has not already floated another scheme on the same land it is clear that the Body is going to derive great profit from this land and, therefore, compensating the allottee with interest at 18% per annum is just and fair.
5. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission which is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The respondent GDA is directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount from the respective date of deposits, till the time the principal amount has been returned to the complainant, after adjusting for the money already paid, within a period of 6 weeks from the passing of this order failing which the appellant shall be free to proceed against respondent GDA under Sections 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
This appeal stands disposed of in above terms.