GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. GAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.1033/1994.

(2.) The facts of the case stated in brief are that complainant applied for a plot in Govindpuram Scheme and deposited a sum of Rs.5,800/- as registration amount on 2.10.1987. The Ghaziabad Development Authority vide their letter dated 5th April, 1989 intimated that a plot has been reserved for the complainant in this scheme. A schedule of payment was also issued, according to which the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.11,600/- on 3rd May, 1989. The rest of the amount of Rs.48,480/- was deposited from 20.7.1989 to 21.1.1992 in six instalments. Thus in this way a sum of Rs.65,880/- was deposited by the complainant. It was further alleged that the plots were expected to be ready for delivery of possession within two years, but inspite of making all the payments in time, Ghaziabad Development Authority did not hand over possession of the plot in question within time. Complainant sent various letters to the Ghaziabad Development Authority for delivery of possession of the plot but no reply was given to him. The complainant has alleged that he had taken house building advance on which he had to pay interest also which the Development Authority must pay. There is deficiency on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority in not delivering the possession of the plot within the stipulated period. The complainant has, therefore, asked for possession of the plot allotted to him alongwith 20% per annum interest on the deposited amount. He has also prayed for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation as well as cost of the litigation alongwith other reliefs.

(3.) Ghaziabad Development Authority in its written version alleged that the delay in handing over possession was on account of the stay order of the Hon'ble High Court which was operative from 24.4.1991 to 16.12.1993. According to Ghaziabad Development Authority there is no deficiency in service because the development work could not be done on account of this stay order.