MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs LT.COL.K.K.CHAUDHARY

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.5.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 1124 of 1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for an H.I.G. house in Pallav Puram Housing Scheme of Meerut Development Authority and deposited a sum of Rs. 4,34,000/- on 1.12.1992. This scheme was published in the newspaper in the name of "Sunahre Awasar". This scheme was floated under the cash down scheme meaning thereby that the possession of the house was to be delivered immediately but the possession has been given on 24.2.1994. THE complainant has prayed for compensation and interest on the amount deposited by him. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that on account of some unforeseen circumstances, the possession of the house could not be given.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service in handing over of the possession, hence it allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs. 4,34,000/- from 1.4.1993 till the date of possession.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the scheme was changed at the instance of the complainant from instalments to cash down. It has further been argued that due to delay in depositing the amount by the complainant hence there was delay in handing over of the possession of the house.

A perusal of the facts goes to show that the entire amount was deposited by the complainant on 1.12.1992 but the possession of the house was delivered on 24.2.1994 after the lapse of 1 year and 3 months. Even if the scheme was changed at the instance of the complainant, the possession should have been given immediately on the deposit of the amount or within the reasonable period of 2/3 months thereafter. But in this case, we find that the possession was delayed very much. On account of this delay in handing over of the possession of the house, there is deficiency in service on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority. If the Meerut Development Authority thought it could not give the possession immediately after depositing the amount then he should not have changed the scheme from hire purchase to Tatkal Yojana. Thus, the learned District Forum was perfectly justified in awarding the interest from 1.4.1993 till the date of possession of the house. It has further been argued that the learned District Forum has awarded interest at the rate of 12% is very much on a higher side. This argument has no force. Even the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 592, has held that interest shall be payable at the rate of 18% per annum. Therefore, awarding of interest at the rate of 12% per annum cannot be said to be on the higher side. Thus, we find that the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order.

LET copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed with costs.