SANJAY UPPAL Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Advocates for the applicant as well as that of the respondent. Learned Advocate has raised the question of maintainability on the ground that the cause of action arose in 1992 whereas the present compensation application was filed on the 25th May, 1998. In this context, our attention has been drawn to the letter dated the 22nd August, 1996, written by the respondent, wherein, the applicant was asked to return the original receipts and other relevant documents as also the possession of the flat, in question, and on receipt thereof, the amount deposited by the applicant would be refunded to him. Learned Advocate for the respondent states that the aforementioned letter dated the 22nd August, 1996 was written in the response to the letter of the applicant. Be that as it may, there was correspondence between the applicant and the respondent and another relevant document in this context is the letter dated the 10th November, 1995 wherein the respondent has informed the applicant that the flat, in question, has been allotted to Central Power Research Institute and an amount of Rs.40,505/- was spent on its repair and renovation and this amount should be deposited by the applicant by 30th November, 1995.

(2.) It is pertinent here to recapitulate the facts of the case. The applicant was allotted flat No. M-140b, situated in Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad vide allotment letter dated the 16th September, 1991 and thereafter he was asked to take possession of the same vide letter dated the 28th March, 1992. It is also not disputed that the applicant was delivered possession on 28th March, 1992. The grievance of the applicant is that though after taking possession, he locked the flat in question, but the very same flat was also given to the Central Power Research Institute, Ghaziabad and this fact is testified by the respondent's letter dated the 10th November, 1995. In view of these developments which are corroborated by the correspondence between the respondent and the applicant, we hold that the cause of action arose from the date of the letter sent by the respondent to the applicant asking him to deposit an amount of Rs.40,505/- spent by the Central Power Research Institute on repairs and renovation of this very flat. Based on this reckoning, the compensation application is within the period of limitation and, therefore, it is maintainable.

(3.) The other point which arises for consideration is whether the respondent has indulged in unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application. Learned Advocate for the respondent states that the offer of alternative flat was given to the applicant in lieu of the flat, in question. It has been stated on behalf of the applicant that he is not interested in the alternative accommodation and instead he has asked for refund of the amount paid by him towards the cost of the flat, in question. The total amount deposited by the applicant is Rs.69,760/-. It may also be mentioned here that the respondent's after handing over the possession of the flat, in question, to the applicant, could not have and should not have allotted the very same flat to a third party, namely, the Central Power Research Institute. Whether it was a mistake on the part of an official of the respondent, or it was an act of mischief, there is no doubt that there is deficiency in service provided by the respondent, and the applicant, therefore, is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him. There is no dispute about the amount and, therefore, we direct the respondent to refund the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period it remained with the respondent. Interest @ 12% is considered reasonable and has been awarded by this Commission in similar cases against this very respondent in the past, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority V/s. Union of India and Anr.,2000 2 CLT 259 civil Appeal No.5329 of 1996, Cost of litigation is assessed to be Rs.5,000/- and is also awarded to the applicant. The respondent is also directed to comply with this order within six weeks and file an affidavit by way of compliance.