SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN vs LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS is an appeal against the Order dated 4th of September, 1990 of the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh in Case No. 43/SC/90.

THE Complainant/Appellant had opted for a M.I.G. flat under the Self Financing Scheme of the Respondent Lucknow Development Authority (for short "L.D.A.") on 30.1.1984 for which he was supposed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- in instalments. His case is that he was made to pay Rs. 1,50,596/- which he thinks was an arithmetical error and then again by a mistake on his own part he paid Rs. 315/- which was not really due. Later, before giving possession of the flat in February, 1988 he was asked to deposit Rs. 6,100/- towards the cost. He claims he has thus paid an excess of Rs. 7,011/- which should be refunded to him by the L.D.A. The Complainant/Appellant also states that the quality of construction was poor. Though he had given a certificate saying the construction was to his satisfaction, but at the time of taking possession, after the first rains the defects appeared and so he claims compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on that score, which he states is a trifling amount, compared to what he actually spent.

IN the appeal the Appellant also claims that he had to wait for four years for the legal possession of the flat and he should be compensated for the delay during which time his money was lying with the Respondent without interest.

THERE was some discrepancy as to the date of the letter of possession, whether it is 15.2.1987 or 15.3.1988. But the State Commission had satisfied itself on this point that the date was actually 15.2.1988. In its order the State Commission observes that the Complainant was not able to prove the various defects in the construction and deficiency on the part of L.D.A. and so dismissed the complaint without giving any relief. At the time of the hearing of the appeal by this Commission, the Appellant was present in person and the Respondent was represented by Counsel. The latter had filed their reply in which they have refuted all the points in the complaint. On the point of the claim of excess payment made, they affirm that Rs. 1,50,000/- was only the estimated sum, and the complainant was told that he would have to pay extra, whatever is required in due course. On the point of late delivery they aver that actually before the deed of registration was signed, the flat, in an incomplete state, was handed over to the Complainant on his own application as he was in a hurry to take over and make his own additions and adjustments etc. This was done on 3.3.1987. But the formal possession was given on 15.2.1988.

TAKING into consideration all the arguments put forth by both sides this Commission is of the view that four years is an unduly long time during which the Complainant's money was lying with the Respondents, without interest. On late payment of instalments the Respondent charges 16% interest and so to be fair to the other side, for late delivery of the flat 16% interest should be paid on the initial sum deposited after two years from the time the contract was made.

THUS , we order that the respondent shall pay to the Complainant/Appellant 16% interest on Rs. 1,50,000/- (not including the subsequent payments made) from 30.1.1986 till the date of handing over of possession of the flats which is 15.3.1988. There will be no order as to costs.