PADAMSEN Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint was filed on 5.5.1994 by Sri Padamsen through attorney Smt. Durga Raina of New Delhi against Ghaziabad Development Authority through its Vice-Chairman. Briefly stated facts contained in the complaint are as follows : the opposite party Ghaziabad Development Authority had floated a housing scheme in Sanjay Nagar area of Ghaziabad in response to which the complainant applied for MIG Flat and deposited Registration amount of Rs.7,000/- on 4.7.1989. As per the schedule of payment prescribed by the opposite party an amount of Rs.34,000/- was to be paid by 30.9.1989. The next instalment was to be paid by 31.3.1990. The instalments could not be paid by the complainant in time and were paid together alongwith Rs.7,000/- as interest on 26.11.1990. The opposite party through a letter demanded details of payments which were submitted by the complainant on 28.11.1990. On 14.12.1990 the registration of the complainant was cancelled on the ground of non-submission of the demanded details through letter dated 26.9.1990. Since cancellation was made on 14.12.1990 and he had paid regular instalments along with interest on 26.11.1990, the cancellation was wrong and untenable. Thereafter, the complainant sent a number of letters to the authorities of the opposite party and even met various authorities from time-to-time. But the file of the complainant could not be traced and the flat in question was allotted to some other person of the choice of the Vice-Chairman. Thereafter he sent a registered letter dated 1.5.1993 to the Vice-Chairman of the opposite party that if he cannot be given an MIG flat as assured, then his money amounting to Rs.1,09,000/- may be returned along with 24% interest per annum w. e. f. January, 1985. This request was also not acceded.

(2.) The reservation letter issued to the complainant goes to show that even after the payment is not made in time penal interest is to be charged and he had paid the penal interest. Moreover, the cancellation should not have been done without giving the complainant a notice to this effect and in the instant case no notice of cancellation was given. It has also been alleged in the complaint that construction cost has escalated more than 5 times and in the present condition the cost of the MIG Flat in an equally placed area comes to rupees seven lakhs.

(3.) The complainant for this alleged lapse has prayed that an amount of rupees seven lakhs be paid to him or to his attorney and an amount of Rs.1,09,000/- deposited by him along with 24% p. a. interest with damages of Rs.45,000/-.