National Consumer Disputes Redressal
G.D.A. vs Smt. Pravin Kumar And 13 Ors. on 20 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)CPJ148(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. These fourteen Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, GDA having been aggrieved by the orders of the U.P. State Commission who through a common order had dismissed appeals and counter appeals filed by the parties against a common order passed by District Forum on complaints filed by the respondent who were the complainants before them.
2. The complainants had filed complaints before the District Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner by way of not handing over the possession of the flats/ houses/plots allotted to them under Govindpuram Scheme within a reasonable period. The District Forum had clubbed all such complaints and had passed a single order directing the petitioner to hand over the possession within a stipulated period, granting interest @ 14% p.a. and in some cases 15% p.a. on the deposited amounts with exemption from the interest for the period during which there was stay on construction by the Allahabad High Court and costs. On appeals/counter appeals filed by the parties, the State Commission by a single order enhanced the rate of interest to 18% p.a., dispensed with the exemption of the period and awarded further costs to the complainants, hence these Revision Petitions.
Revision Petition Nos. 500, 502, 504, 526, 530, 547 and 548/1999:
3. In these Revision Petitions, what we see is that against the orders of the District Forum while the petitioners had filed appeals against the order, the complainants had not filed any appeal. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as per record, orders of the District Forum were complied with. We have on record the report of the Vice-Chairman, GDA prepared on our behest. On all these petitions, the petitioner has reported the issue settled and does not press the petitions before us. In the light of this statement, these Revision Petitions are dismissed as not pressed.
Revision Petition No. 503/1999 :
4. In this case a compromise was reached between the parties and State Commission passed order to this effect in Appeal No. 14545/ 1995 on 4.9.1996. In view of this petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise reached before the parties.
Revision Petition No. 534 of 1999 :
5. In this case a compromise has been reached. Compromise Deed outlining the terms of the compromise duly signed by the parties is on record. This petition is disposed of on those terms.
Revision Petition Nos. 527, 528 and 532 0/1999 :
6. These Revision Petitions are disposed of as per settled position in terms of our order passed in Revision Petition No. 475/1999.
Revision Petition Nos, 531 and 535/1999 :
7. These two petitions stands out as 'stand alone' cases. In these two cases the position is that in R.P. No. 531/1995 the possession was handed over on 15.7.1993 and in the case of Revision Petition No. 535/1995 the possession letter was issued on 21.10.1993 for taking possession on 30.10.1993. These dates are important as these dates fall between the period of stay granted by the Allahabad High Court on further construction under Govindpuram Scheme. In both these cases the District Forum on being approached by the respondents/ complainants alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner for delay in handing over the possession of the houses, the District Forum vide its order dated 8.8.1996 had directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 18% on the deposited amounts from the date of deposit to the date of delivery of possession. Admitted position, as per report of the Vice-Chairman of GDA which is part of the record is, that possession was to be given within two years from the date of reservation i.e. 10.10.1990 but it was offered on 21.10.1993 (in Revision Petition No. 535/1999) and within two years from the date of reservation i.e. 10.7.1989 (in Revision Petition No. 530/1999) but possession was given on 5.7.1993. The plea of the petitioner is that exemption be given for the period of stay granted by the High Court whereas plea of the respondent/complainant is that no case is made out for the exemption as their houses were not covered by the stay order - as shall be obvious from the letter of offer for possession/actual possession during this period itself. This will belie the contention of the petitioner that construction work was not in progress. The District Forum has awarded interest (c) 18% for the full period of delay, which has been confined by the State Commission. We are conscious of the fact that the HUDA and Ors. v. Darsh Kumar and Ors., we have given exemption from the onus of payment of interest for the period of 'stay', but we also see from the facts of these cases that order passed by us (supra) cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of these cases as by any stretch of imagination. We cannot construe that stay had any effect on progress of work or handing over the possession of these completed houses. In these cases possession was handed over or possession offered during the stay period implying thereby that work had not stopped i.e. remained unaffected by the stay order. We see no ground to exempt the period of stay from the period for which interest is to be payable by the petitioner in these cases. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission in granting interest @ 18%. Hence, these two Revision Petitions are dismissed.
All these petitions are disposed of in above terms. No orders as to costs.