GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SAMIT CHAKRAVARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order passed by the UP State Commission dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner, GDA against the order of District Forum allowing complaint filed by the respondent, Samit Chakravarti who was the complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had booked an MIG flat with petitioner, GDA in 1988 under Hire Purchase Scheme. He had paid all the instalments due as per brochure before handing over the possession which was to be delivered within two years i.e. by 1990. It is admitted position that the possession was given on 19.4.1995. In all the complainant paid Rs. 1,92,280/- before getting the possession whereas as per brochure petitioner GDA was entitled to collect only Rs. 1,07,500/- before giving possession, rest was to be collected over a period of five years with 14% interest. The complainant prayed for monetary compensation and claimed damages for wrongful demands made and collecting amount for in excess of terms as spelled out in the brochure. The District Forum after hearing both the parties ordered payment of interest @ 15% on the deposited amount from 1.4.1991 to 19.4.1995 within two months failing which rate of interest was to be calculated @ 18%. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the GDA, Mr. Sudhir Kulshrestha that after having accepted the possession of the flat, the complainant has no locus to file any complaint against the petitioner, GDA and for this he relied upon the Commission's order passed in Sarthak Behuria & Anr. v. The Orissa State Housing Board & Anr., III (1993) CPJ 384 (NC). He also relied upon Premji Bhai Parmar & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., and R.C. Richhariya & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 129 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that "Once an ordinary contract entered into by the State or its agent with individual citizen is concluded, the citizen having willingly paid the purchase amount and taken possession of the contracted item, a subsequent petition under Article 32 seeking to re-open the contract for getting back a part of the purchase money under the camaflange of Article 14, is not maintainable. The facts of this case are different. Neither the two lower Foras have gone into the pricing factor nor had the complainant paid the full price. Only part of the price had been paid. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution is not the best route to get relief because in the case under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to levy of surcharge by DDA on the flat owners. Present case relates to five years delay in handing over the possession which naturally led to cost escalation. We are not going into that question. The issue before us is different than the one before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Issue before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any damages/compensation to be paid by the petitioner, GDA for the money retained by them for years and on top of that asked to pay escalated cost for no fault of his. We have held in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar that wherever there is deficiency on the part of the agencies like the petitioner, the latter will be liable to pay interest @ 18% from two years of deposit of the amount and in the case of Govindpuram Scheme after setting off the period of stay granted by the High Court from the calculation of interest. We have also gone through the other citations. We find the facts of two cases are different. In the case cited Sarthak Behuria & Anr., v. Orissa State Housing Board & Anr., facts of case related to defects noticed after taking possession and cost of its rectification. This citation is not applicable in the present case as the instant case relates to grant of interest for the period for which money was retained by the petitioner for a long period after the promised period of handing over of possession had long expired in 1990.