SAMBHAVANA BUILDERS P LTD Vs. SUDHA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the order dated 4.4.94 of the State Commission, Delhi upholding the order of the District Forum, Delhi dated 12.4.93 by which the Petitioner herein was directed to pay Rs. 22,999 /- as interest by way of damages till the date of filing of the complaint, further interest at 12% per annum on that amount till the date of payment and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation.

(2.) THE Petitioners herein M/s. Sambhavana Builders Pvt. Ltd. formulated a scheme for construction of flats in the locality known as Vasant Kunj for working women in Delhi. The Complainant in her complaint alleged that while giving particulars of this scheme, Ms. Bhavani S. lyer informed the Complainant in May, 1989 that the Petitioners had undisputed title and possession over the land in Vasant Kunj and had all the clearances required under the law for commencing construction of the flat. In July, 1989 the Complainant was enrolled as a member on payment of Rs. 110/-and applied for a three bed rooms flat in the proposed building. The Complainant paid Rs. 65,000/- in July, 1989 and Rs. 30,000/- on 7.10.89 towards the first three instalments with an assurance by the Petitioners that the facility of financial assistance towards the cost of the flat was also available from L.I.C. or other housing financial institutions. The Culminant further alleged that she received some circulars from the Petitioners about the progress of the housing scheme, but in July, 1991 the Opposite Parties informed the members that "as on today we are awaiting a letter for the conversion of the land from D.D.A." and this was in total contradiction to the assurances and representations made earlier. The Complainant, there upon asked for the refund of the money with interest. The sum of Rs. 95,110/- was refunded to her but no interest was paid. She later on filed the complaint stating that facts and alleging that the Petitioner No. 1 and its Directors have deliberately the Complainant into believing that they had the requisite clearances for under taking construction but till date the Company's proposal has not been cleared and that the land in question is in green-belt and cannot at all be utilised for construction of flats for residential purposes. She stated that having been put to considerable loss she prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) THE Petitioners filed the appeal before the State Commission. The appeal was fixed for argument on 1.4.94 which was declared a holiday being the Good Friday and hence it was taken up for hearing on 4.4.94. The Counsel for the Petitioners herein (Appellants before the State Commission) was not present. The State Commission expressed the view that the District Forum has rightly granted the interest and compensation to the Complainant and found no ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.