ENGINEERS INDIA LTD Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant -Engineers India Limited, Indirapuram Allottees Welfare Association is a registered body under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Society was registered in 1995 for ostensible purpose of taking care of the welfare of the allottees in the Indirapuram Scheme floated by opposite party No. 1, the GDA. The complainant has alleged that while most of the members have deposited four out of five instalments, the allotment of houses under the abovementioned Scheme of GDA is nowhere in sight till the date of filing of the complaint in 1996, in spite of the promises held out that the flats will be completed by December, 1993. The prayer of the complainant is to direct the GDA to hand -over the possession of the flats with all the facilities, to direct the opposite party to pay penal interest @ 24% per annum from December, 1993 on which date the first opposite party was to deliver the flats till the date of handing over of the flats, award of Rs. 5.00 lakhs towards the cost of the case and award of compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh to each of the members on account of deficiency of service on the part of the GDA and any other relief deemed appropriate under the circumstances.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that in order to help their employees, opposite party No. 2 - Engineers India Limited (EIL) took up the matter with GDA for allotment of houses in Ghaziabad, being in proximity to Delhi in order to solv e the problem of permanent residence to their employees. Initially, it was for 100 employees of the EIL. Subsequently, the number went upto 215. The arrangement was that EIL would interact with GDA on behalf of its employees and also send the cheques of the instalments being paid for each of the Member of the Association/ Employee of EIL. According to the complainant, most of the members have paid four out of five instalments due but the opposite party has failed to maintain the deadline of delivery of the flats by December, 1993. Since the opposite party No. 1 had failed to show any satisfactory progress of work on the site, they delayed the payment of instalments. It is their case that till the date of filing of the complaint, the flats were not complete even after expiry of three years i.e., after 1993. Hence, this complaint directing the opposite party No. 1 to hand over the flats with costs.

(3.) A perusal of the record at this stage shows a very checkered route which the whole case took. In the first instance, we see that opposite party No. 1 -GDA taking their own time in filing their reply which they did in April, 1997 which is almost one year after filing the complaint, and this, inspite or a statutory time for filling reply within 30 days, under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission, by its order dated 9.12.1996 was pleased to give the opposite party, GDA four weeks time to file the reply, but even then the reply was filed after a delay of more than four months. Based on the reply filed by the GDA, the Commission passed order dated 29.4.1997 that 'possession of flats which have been allotted to the members of the petitioner -Association, shall be delivered over to those members immediately on their remitting to the GDA whatever balance amount is due by each one of them in payment of instalment numbers 1 to 5, within a period of one month from today, and exhaustive list showing the balance amount payable by each of the members of the petitioner -Association to make up the full amount of instalment numbers 1 to 5. The possession of the flats shall be given to such of the members who comply with the condition stipulated above namely, payment of full amount of instalment Nos. 1 to 5...'. No such details of the instalments due was made within the time limit given to the GDA, in the absence of which allotment was also deferred. By their affidavit dated 6.11.1998, the opposite party No. 1 through Joint Secretary, GDA, UP, it was stated that presently 160 flats in different towers of same category are completed in all respects which can be handed over and the remaining 37 flats required by the members will be completed very shortly. Subsequently, in the same affidavit it was stated that the remaining 37 (thirty seven) flats will be Completed after delivery of possession within six months due to reason that the earlier contractor has left the work in complete and fresh steps have been taken to give it to a new contractor. It is seen that even though the opposite party -GDA were given a period of four weeks from 29.4.1997 to supply details of the payments to be made by each allottee, yet compliance was effected only sometime in August, 1998, through which they intimated to the individual members of the Association of the balance amount which need to be deposited calculated upto 30.12.1998. Before paying this amount when the members visited the site to inspect as to the progress of the work, they found the work to be incomplete in pursuance of which the complainants filed affidavit dated 16.9.1999 stating that flats were incomplete and supporting it with photographs of the site. A counter -affidavit was filed by Executive Engineer, GDA, dated 20.10.1999 that the flats are complete and ready to be handed over; he also enclosed some photographs in support of their affidavit. Another affidavit was filed by the petitioner showing the status of the flats saying that they are still incomplete and not fit to take possession even in the year 2000.