RAKHSHANDA QUADEER Vs. BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this complaint filed under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "C.P. Act") complainant-Mrs. Rakhshanda Quadeer who has purchased a house from opposite party No. 1-Bhopal Development Authority (for short the "BDA") claims compensation Rs. 11,34,105 on following counts: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_437_CPJ2_2008_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Pursuant to an advertisement published in local newspapers on 15.8.1996, complainant amongst others, on 24.8.1996, booked an HIG-1 Duplex House carrying estimated value Rs. 10,24,500, in Qazi Wajdi-Ul-Hussaini Housing Complex, Nayapura, Lalghati, Bhopal developed by the BDA and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,03,000 as registration fee. Allotment order was issued on 13.11.1996 requiring complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 9,21,500 in five instalments of Rs. 1,84,300 each, to be deposited on 90th, 210th, 320th, 448th and 548th days from the date of issue of allotment order. The complainant deposited the remaining amount as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_437_CPJ2_2008_2.html</FRM> There was thus delay of 10 months, 5 months and 4 months in payment of 3rd, 4th and 5th instalments respectively.

(3.) It appears that the BDA vide its letter dated 28.7.1999 indicated the final cost of the house of Rs. 11,70,000, thus requiring the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,45,500. However, the complainant denies to have received any such letter and instead it is averred that vide demand letter dated 17.12.1999 he was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,01,500 only. However, the opposite parties explained that in this letter dated 17.12.1999, by mistake, the balance amount was shown as Rs. 1,01,500 which, in fact, was Rs. 1,45,500. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,01,500 in two instalments on 1.2.2000 (Rs. 50,000) and on 1.5.2000 (Rs. 51,500). By another letter dated 1.8.2001 OP made an additional demand of Rs. 1,18,793 which were paid by the complainant on 20.9.2001. This amount obviously included the difference of the said two earlier demands dated 28.7.1999 and 17.12.1999, interest for the delay period, lease rent and maintenance charges. Lease deed was executed on 25.9.2001 whereas the possession was finally delivered on 28th June, 2002. There are documents available on record to show that before delivery of the possession on 28th June, 2002 there has been lot of correspondence between the parties about defects in the house and rectification thereof.