DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. R C JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 14.3.1999, passed by District Forum No. V in Complaint Case No.504/98 entitled - Shri R. C. Jain V/s. Delhi Development Authority.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri R. C. Jain had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that he was allotted a flat, bearing No.333, Category-II, Second Floor, Pocket-10, Sector-XI, Rohini, Delhi, under the Residential Scheme (Self Financing Scheme), by the appellant vide letter dated 27th May, 1991. It was stated by the respondent/complainant that he made all the payments towards the cost of the abovesaid flat to the appellant as required by the schedule. It was averred by the respondent/complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment it was stipulated that in case the construction of the flat was delayed due to unforeseen reasons and the delay was beyond 30 months to 36 month till the issue of Demand Letter for 5th and final instalment, the allottee was to be paid interest at the rate of 7% per annum and beyond 36 months the interest was to be paid at the rate of 10% annum on the deposit made by the allottee. The grievance of the respondent/complainant, in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, was that in terms of the above stipulation he was entitled to a sum of Rs.80,377/- on account of belated construction interest (BCI) as per the policy of the appellant, but the appellant had given him the adjustment to the tune of Rs.39,455/- only. The respondent/complainant had prayed that the appellant be directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,922/- i. e. the difference of the amount to be adjusted (80,377 - 39,455 = 40,922/-) alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 1.3.1996 till realization.

(3.) The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was contested by the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant was that belated construction interest had been paid to the respondent/complainant correctly as per the policy of the appellant being followed by the appellant in such like cases.