D D A Vs. R P SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the original opposite party - authority is directed against the order dated 4.7.2002 of State Commission, Delhi allowing the complaint with the direction to the authority to pay interest on the amounts of Rs.4,98,475 for a period of 2 years and on Rs. 6,934 from the date of deposit till 24.6.1996 at the rate of 12% p.a.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant was allotted, by the appellant authority, built flat No. 263, Pocket GH -4, Paschim Puri, New Delhi vide letter No. F -145(l)/93/SFS/PA -lll dated 26/31.3.1993. The total cost of the flat of Rs.4,98,475 was deposited with the authority on 29.5.1993. Relevant documents were also handed over to the authority on 18.6.1993. The appellant authority demanded towards API (Actual Period Interest) the amount of Rs. 1,195 vide letter dated 12.9.1994 which was deposited by the respondent on 10.11.1994. Amount of Rs. 6,934 which was charged in excess erroneously was refunded by the authority to the respondent on 24.6.1996. Respondent alleged that despite payment of the total price of flat on 29.5.1993, the possession of flat was offered to him vide letter dated 25.9:1995, i.e., after a lapse of about 2% years after the draw for flat. Possession of the flat was taken by the respondent on 15.12.1995. Complaint filed by the respondent claiming certain reliefs on contest by the authority was allowed by the State Commission in the manner noticed above.

(3.) MS . Wadhwa, Advocate for the appellant, challenges the order under appeal with regard to the period for which the interest was allowed and the rate of interest. She points out that Demand -cum -Allotment letter dated 26.3.1993/31.3.1993, provides for payment of additional amount towards API to be intimated in due course and the amount of Rs. 1,195 towards API was demanded by the letter dated 12.9.1994. It is this date and not the date 29.5.1993 has to be taken for counting the period of delay. To be only noted that there is a time gap of more than 1 year and 3 months between the payment of Rs. 4,98,475 and issue of the letter demanding Rs. 1,195 towards API. In our view, the authority could not defer the offer of possession of the flat for such a long period on the ground of the small amount of API not being paid, even the intimation of which was delayed by the authority itself. The authority was, thus, rightly ordered to pay interest for a period of two years.