ASHOK KHANNA Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (herein referred to as the District Forum' for short), has filed the present Revision Petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are: Petitioner/complainant applied for a flat on 27.2.1988 under Kaushambi Apartment Scheme, 1988 of the respondent -Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GDA' for short) and deposited Registration Fee of Rs. 60,000. GDA sent Reservation Letter in favour of the petitioner along with payment schedule. Petitioner paid the balance amount of Rs. 5,40,000 as per the payment schedule sent by the GDA. It was alleged in the Complaint that as per the Brochure, GDA had to deliver possession of the flat upto 31.7.1990. On 6.11.1993, GDA informed the petitioner that the cost of the flat has been increased by Rs. 57,000 and asked the petitioner to deposit additional amount of Rs. 57,000 along with Rs. 6,470 towards lease rent and Rs. 3,600 as service charges on or before 30.11.1993. The possession was to be given upto 15.12.1993. Petitioner, after depositing the sum of Rs. 57,000, took delivery of possession on 20.12.1993. Alleging deficiency on the part of the GDA in not delivering the possession within the stipulated time, the complaint was filed seeking interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount for the delayed period. Rs. 5,000 were demanded by way of rent in addition to compensation and litigation expenses, etc.

(3.) GDA , in its written statement, admitted that the petitioner had applied for a flat in Kaushambi Appartment Scheme, 1988. The deposit of sum of Rs. 6,00,000 was also admitted. Stand taken by the GDA was that the period of 2 years promised for the delivery of possession was on estimate basis. Similarly, cost of Rs. 6,00,000 was also fixed on estimate basis. Due to escalation of cost of construction, the petitioner was asked to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 57,000. It was stated that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as he had taken the possession of the flat after being satisfied.