LAWS(NCD)-2001-12-21

GDA Vs. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA

Decided On December 06, 2001
GDA Appellant
V/S
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ghaziabad Development Authority on the limited point whether the allottee of a plot/house continue to be a consumer after taking possession of the plot/house or not ? This point has arisen in the instant case because the District Forum granted relief by way of grant of interest @ 18% p.a. to the respondent/complainant for the period covering the due date of allowing of possession of the house upto the date of delayed delivery of possession.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the respondent was allotted a HIG Single Storey House by way of a reservation letter on 27.3.1989. Payments were being made on schedule and not getting possession of the allotted house. He approached District Forum seeking various reliefs. Possession of the house was given on 6.5.1995. The ground of late delivery on account of stay by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court granted in the execution of Scheme under Govind Puram Scheme, was accepted by the District Forum. The stay was vacated effective from 17.12.1993, hence the District Forum recorded interest on the deposited amount @ 18% from 17.12.1993 to 6.5.1995 and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, mainly on the ground that the respondent/complainant ceased to be a consumer after giving over of possession of the house to him. This issue was discussed at length by the State Commission and relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) : 1986-94 and also relying on the robust practical common sense that in cases of defects detected by the allottee after taking over the possession or any legal deficiency on the part of Ghaziabad Development Authority like not entering into a Sale Agreement Deed with the allottee under these circumstances, how can a person cease to be a consumer after taking possession. It was not the intention of the law makers. We entirely agree with the cogent reasoning of the State Commission on this point. We also see that CPA is social legislation enacted to benefit the common man/consumer.

(3.) We totally agree with the view arrived at by the State Commission. This Commission has also recently passed order in the case of HUDA v. Darsh Kumar, R.P. No. 1197 of 1998, that when-ever there is delay in handing over possession of the plot/house by any agency like Ghaziabad Development Authority and others, consumer is entitled for interest @ 18% p.a. from two years after the date of amount deposited. In the case of Govindpuram Scheme, additional relief has also been granted by exempting G.D.A. from payment of interest for the stay period applicable under Govindpuram Scheme. This is precisely what has been done in the present case. We see no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by both the lower fora. Order of the State Commission is upheld and the Revision Petition is dismissed. No order on costs. Revision Petition dismissed.