GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SUBHASH CHANDRA SONI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.5.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 240 of 1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant booked one flat in Pratap Vihar 4-storey building valued at Rs. 1,60,000/-. THE area was indicated as 67.72 sq. mts. THE complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 64,000/- but by letter dated 28.1.1994 Ghaziabad Development Authority enhanced the price to Rs. 1,78,000/-. THE enhanced price was to be deposited by 31.3.1994. THE complainant went to the spot and found that no development work was done on the spot. THE quality of the material used in the construction was also sub-standard and hence he refused to take the flat and applied for refund of the amount. The opposite party has alleged that the construction was completed and all necessary civil amenities were also completed.

The learned District Forum, after considering the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the house is not worth living and there are no civil amenities. It therefore allowed refund of the deposited amount alongwith 18% per annum interest and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the appellant the enhancement was only Rs. 18,000/- on an initial cost of the plot of Rs. 1,60,000/-. ACCORDING to learned Counsel the enhancement was not beyond proportion and the complainant was bound to pay the increased cost. The complainant has refused to take the flat for some extraneous consideration because the development work had been completed and the house was constructed with standard material. On the other hand learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that as there was no development of the property and the construction was also sub-standard, therefore, the complainant had refused to take the flat. Ghaziabad Development Authority has not filed any paper to show that the development work was completed by the time possession was offered to the complainant. There is no evidence on record to show that when other persons in this building to whom flats were allotted had moved in the building and the possession was also delivered to them. If any person was living in those flats, then he must have been handed over possession and registration of sale deed of that house could have been filed. In absence of any such documents we are not in a position to hold that the development work was complete and the complainant had refused to take possession inspite of this fact. The finding of the learned District Consumer Forum suffers with no factual flaw and as such it deserves to be confirmed as there was deficiency in service on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Shimla Development Authority v. Asha Rani, II (1996) CLT 27 (SC)=AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1591. This case law does not apply to the facts of this case. In that case the enhanced cost of the disputed property was directed to be paid by the allottee because the compensation amount had been enhanced in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. This is not the case here and more over in the case in hand it has been held that there was no development work of the property in question. The second case is of Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. v. Kewal Krishan Goel & Ors., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1981. In that case some of the instalments were deposited by the allottees and he expressed his inability to pay rest of the amount, he requested for refund of the deposited amount. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the refund is to be made after forfeiting the earnest money. This case also does not apply to the facts of the present case for the reasons stated above.

THE result is that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order

THE appeal is dismissed and the order and judgment of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of this order be made within six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.