M P HOUSING BOARD Vs. CHITRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that whenever a person who wanted to withdraw the amount if deposited the same could withdraw after deduction of 10% amount and without any interest after draw of lots. There could not be any dispute with this submission but this submission has to be appreciated in proper perspective. In this matter according to the petitioner's own saving the house was to be constructed and given to the complainant by June 2001. The allotment letter though was issued on 3.1.2004, there was a finding of the State Commission that the house would be ready in April, 2004. The State Commission was justified in taking the view that more than 3 years had passed in handing over the possession. The complainant was made to live in an accommodation and he might have saved rent thereof in case the house was readily available in 2001-2002 on one hand and the money of the petitioner remained blocked without fetching any return thereof on the other. The possession was not even offered before 31.1.2004. The complainant was forced to demand back the money in view of the delay on one hand and further escalation in price of Rs. 6,50,000 to Rs. 7,62,482 which was further demanded. The total demand including other charges was Rs. 7,62,482. A poor person who has been deprived of the house due to delayed delivery, enhancement made in price and was burdened to pay rent in addition to blocking of his money without any return for more than 3 years would be justified in claiming that he should have been compensated with interest plus rent and it would be much more than 20%, 10% of the deposited amount was sought to be deducted and 10% interest which was awarded.

(3.) Following principles equity justice conscience and good we feel that it is not a fit case where this Commission should interfere with the impugned order. However, we extend time to pay the amount by 4 weeks with interest @ 12%.