PRAMOD KUMAR MANDOLI Vs. BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh whereby the State Commission partly allowed the appeal. It is not necessary to discuss the facts in detail as the question to be decided in this revision petition is whether the petitioner herein (complainant before the District Forum) is entitled for interest for the delay in delivery of possession of the flats.

(2.) In this case the complainant approached the District Forum for grant of compensation for the delay in delivery of the flats. The case of the complainant is that he had made the instalments to the respondent in time, i.e., the last instalment was made on 22.11.1992. After making the last instalment on 22.11.1992, the respondent had demanded escalation charges which was to be paid in two instalments, i.e., one instalment on 20.4.1993 and the other on 20.6.1993. The complainant made the first instalment of Rs. 30,000/- on 15.6.1993, and the second instalment of Rs. 40,000/- was made on 21.5.1996. After making the second instalment on 21.5.1996, the respondent offered possession of the flat to the complainant. The main contention of the complainant before the District Forum was that the delivery of the possession of the flat should have been offered by respondent by 22.2.1993. In response to this contention, the respondent contended before the District Forum that possession could not be offered till the deposit of the escalation in price. In this connection, it is pertinent to reproduce the view of the District Forum which reads as under: "So far as the escalation in the prices is concerned, the argument of the non-applicant is not acceptable that since the amount was not deposited in time no possession of the premises could be delivered and that amount ought to be deposited before delivery of possession. The claim of the applicant has not been rebutted that he made many approaches to the office of the respondent and enquired about completion of the building and about delivery of possession, no information was furnished to him. Even in its letter dated 22.5.1993 the respondent did not mention about completion of the building. In these circumstances if the applicant made deposit late, no breach can be attributed on his part and on the basis even after receiving the last instalment on 24.11.1992 and thereafter for 3 months, i.e., 28.2.1993 (sic). If no delivery of possession is made, it is deficiency. On this basis the applicant is entitled to get interest." In view of the above discussion, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the deposited amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- from 24.2.1993 to 28.2.1998.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the respondent went in appeal to the State Commission. The contention of the complainant/respondent before the State commission was that the escalated cost was to be worked out after final construction. The construction was completed on 21.1.1997, therefore, prior to that escalated cost could not have been demanded. Hence, the respondent for its own lapse under the garb of non-payment of the amount cannot avoid the payment of interest. If the respondent wanted the documents to be executed in the joint name, in that case too they ought to have been completed, but the construction was completed in the year 1997, therefore, the District Forum rightly passed the order.