MOHAN BABU UCHARIYA Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that the applicant applied for an allotment of a house in Indrapuram Phase-II Housing Scheme as launched by and on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as respondent). The application was made for a house for non-resident Indians and for the persons belonging to SC/ST categories. The applicant paid Rs. 59,640/ - towards the registration amount along with the application submitted to the respondent. Reservation letter was received from the respondent allotting an HIG single storey house under the said scheme. As mentioned in the letter, the following instalments were paid on the following dates: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_67_CPJ1_2001_1.html</FRM> As nothing was heard from the respondent after payment of full amount towards the price of the flat, the applicant approached the respondent for information in regard to the availability of the house. In absence of any response from the respondent till 1994, the applicant vide letter dated 24.6.1993 asked for refund of the amount. As neither the refund was paid nor was there any hope of delivery of the house, the applicant accordingly approached the Commission with the prayer that the applicant may be paid the full amount of the deposit along with interest @ 20.25% per annum from the date of payment for the unfair trade practices indulged in by the respondent Authority. In addition, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000.00 towards frustration, harassment and mental agony suffered by the applicant has also been prayed for.

(2.) In reply to the notice issued, the respondent refuted the charges levelled against it. It is contended that the applicant has been allotted House No. 95 in Abhaykhand as intimated vide letter dated 4.1.19094. In absence of formalities having been complied with by the applicant, delivery of house could not be handed over to it. The delay in the issue of the refund occurred on account of non-availability of the original receipts of the payments on the part of the applicant. The cost of the house as indicated in the brochure being a tentative one is subject to revision. Further as per terms of agreement no interest is payable to the applicant. After completion of the proceedings, the following issues were framed :

(3.) Both the parties submitted affidavits and counter-affidavits duly supported by the respective documents. The applicant in his statement denied having received any letter from the GDA requiring it to produce the original receipts. The witness appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand produced the despatch register, supporting its contention for having requested the applicant for production of original receipts. It had however been admitted that the photocopies of the receipts had been in possession of the respondent since 1997 (underlined by us). Reliance was placed on various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court having bearing on the case.