Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Complaint Case No.131 of 2000
Smt. Jagannath Devi, aged about 75 years,
W/o Late Sri Nanday Lal Gupta,
R/o 0-5/5, Parikalp Nagar East, LDA Colony,
Kanpur Road, Lucknow. (Died)
Sri Lakhan Lal Gupta s/o Late Sri Nanday Lal Gupta,
R/o 0-5/5, Parikalp Nagar East, LDA Colony,
Kanpur Road, Lucknow. …Complainant.
Versus
Lucknow Development Authority,
6, JC Bose Marg, Lucknow through
its Secretary. …..Opposite party.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member
Sri Mujeeb Effendi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri S.N. Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite party.
Date 1.9.2021
JUDGMENT
Sri Rajendra Singh, Member- This complaint has been filed by the complainant Smt Jagannath Devi (now deceased), through LR Mr. Lakhan Lal Gupta under section 17 (a) (i) of The Consumer Protection Act 1986, against Lucknow Development Authority for a relief that the opposite party be directed to refund to the complainant’s deposited amount of ₹ 340,000/– along with 20% interest from the date of its deposit till the date of its actual payment, to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of ₹ 15 lakhs as compensation for mental tension and agony, and to pay ₹ 3300/ – as cost of the suit.
(2)
The brief facts of the complaint are that, that in the year 1990 the opposite party has notified a housing scheme in the name and style of “Kanpur Road Yojna ke Antargat Sector H me Bhawnon ke Panjikaran Hetu” under which the complainant secured her registration for an allotment of MIG built up house by depositing a prescribed registration money of ₹ 15,000/- on 22 August 1990. On 30 July 1991 the opposite party allotted to the complainant MIG house under Self Financing Scheme at Kanpur Road (Sector H). On 18 September 1991 the opposite party issued a formal allotment letter of MIG house number 3/658, in Kanpur Road Scheme (Sector – H) under the Self Financing Mode of Payment, at an estimated cost of ₹ 340,000/–. By the dint of said allotment letter dated 18 September 1991 the complainant was required to deposit five quarterly instalments of ₹ 61,000/– each latest by 15 January 1993.
In compliance with the allotment intimation dated 30 July 1991 and allotment letter dated 18 September 1991, the complainant deposited the following amounts with the opposite party in connection with the said MIG house: –
Date of Payment Amount
30.08.1991 20,000/-
12.08.1992 61,000/-
03.09.1992 61,000/-
03.09.1992 61,000/-
15.10.1992 61,000/-
16.01.1993 61,000/-
Total Amount deposited ₹ 325,000/–.
(3)
Thus the whole estimated cost of the said house amounting to ₹ 340,000/– (including ₹ 15,000/– registration money) deposited by 16 January 1993. After depositing full estimated cost of ₹ 340,000/– the complainant in person visited the site to inspect the condition of said allotted house and on inspection the complainant found the following defects in the said unit: –
- Walls were damp
- dampness was oosing out of foundations
- plaster had peeled off
- Walls bore cracks
- House Was below promised standards
On 4 April 1993 the complainant lodged a strong protest with the opposite party and made a request to change the said allotted house with a different one or to return the deposited amount along with due interest. For six years the opposite party kept the matter in cold storage in spite of complainant’s several representations. Neither the opposite party changed the said defective house with any other one nor the opposite party refunded to the complainant her deposited amount of ₹ 340,000/– along with due interest. After such harassment, the complainant on 20 February 1999 met in person with the Vice-Chairman of the opposite party Mr Balvinder Singh and again renewed his request to either allot any other house at the same cost instead of house no 3/658 or to refund her deposited amount with interest. Upon it, the Vice-Chairman of the opposite party passed the following written order addressing to Sanyukt Sachiv (BHARTI) Mr. RP Singh:
“कृपया परीक्षण कर तुरंत आख्या प्रस्तुत करे अन्यथा ब्याज सहित धनराशि वापस करें।”
(4)
In spite of the orders of Vice-Chairman of LDA nothing was done. The complainant on 20 May sent a legal notice to the opposite party demanding refund of entire deposited amount of ₹ 340,000/- along with 18% interest from the date of deposit. The opposite party without cancelling her allotment, had sold the said unit to someone else in the year 1998 for a sum of ₹ 6.5 lakhs. Losing all hope of success the complainant on 1 July 2000 made a written representation to Mr Lalji Tandon, Minister for Housing and Urban Development requesting him to order the opposite party to refund the complainant’s amount as the opposite party has already sold the said allotted house no 3/658 to someone else without any intimation to the complainant and without allotting any alternative house to the complainant.
Being fed up with the hanky-panky acts of opposite party, the complainant preferred this complaint for redressal of his grievance against the opposite party on the ground of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as resorted by the opposite party in the allotment of built up MIG house and in the refund of deposited cost of the said house amounting to ₹ 340,000/– till date neither the pposite party has allotted to the complainant any other house in lieu of defective house nor the opposite party has refunded the total deposited amount of complainant in spite of the fact that these demands were placed by the complainant way back in the year 1993. If the opposite party would have refunded the said amount to the complainant she would have purchased some house from any other builders. The complainant is living in a rented
(5)
house since 1993. The opposite party slept over the matter for the last seven years and in these years the complainant has left no stone unturned to get her deposited money refunded. Thus the opposite party is guilty of negligence and the opposite party kept the complainant on a waiting list for such a long and inordinate period of time for which the complainant is entitled for the release sought in the complaint.
The opposite party, in its written statement has submitted that the complainant had deposited a sum of ₹ 340,000/– towards the final cost of the flat allotted to her. But unless and until the allottee takes the possession of the house, the allottee cannot point out the defects in the house. It appears that after depositing the entire amount the complainant changed her mind regarding taking possession of the house allotted to her and therefore, she submitted a letter on 4 April 1993 to exchange the house allotted to her with any other house or for refund of the amount deposited by her. It is submitted that vide letter no 4415/JS(S) dated 8 August 1995 the complainant was informed that for execution of lease deed in her favour in respect of the house no 543/668/H she had to furnish the general stamp papers for a sum of ₹ 12,325/– along with lease rent but the complainant did not complete the aforesaid formalities. The Vice-Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority, on the request of the complainant passed an order for refund of the deposited amount along with admissible rate of interest at a rate of 6% per annum but the complainant sent a legal notice to the
(6)
opposite party claiming there in the rate of interest at the rate of 18% per annum after accepting the request of the complainant for refunding the amount the opposite party was free to sell the house allotted to the complainant, on a cost prevailing at the time of sale. The said house was allotted to Smt. Manorama Singh in April 1997 for a sale consideration of ₹ 345,000/. It is wrong to say that the sale consideration was ₹ 650,000/-.
Vide letter no 756/PO dated 7 September 2000, the opposite party informed the complainant that she was required to deposit the original chalan in the office of the opposite party, so that, the amount deposited by her may be refunded along with admissible interest at the earliest. The opposite party vide letter number 854/JS dated 15 February 2001 reminded the complainant to submit the original Chalan, so that the refund of the amount along with admissible interest may be made. The complainant herself is responsible for delay in the refund of the deposited amount of, as she had not completed the formalities. The complainant firstly did not complete the formalities required for registration and possession of the house and thereafter when the opposite party had sanctioned the refund of the deposited amount along with admissible interest, the complainant instead of depositing the original Chalan filed the present complaint before this Hon’ble Commission. In case of refund it is mandatory for the depositor to submit the original Chalan to the authority and in case of loss of original Chalan the depositor has to lodge an FIR and has to give an affidavit with regard to the deposit made by her.
(7)
It is submitted that once the complainant has exercised her option of taking the refund, she cannot raise any objection with regard to any defect in the house allotted to her. If the refund is being claimed by the complainant, she would be entitled to the interest admissible from time to time which is 6% at present. As per the rules it is only the unsuccessful applicant in the lottery whose registration amount is refundable with admissible interest but if after depositing the entire amount and allottee is not willing to take possession of the property and is claiming the refund then he would not be entitled to any refund. However in the present case the vice-chairman in exercise of his special powers had sanctioned the refund of the deposited amount along with the interested to the complainant. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is still ready to refund the amount along with admissible interest on receipt of the original Chalan the complainant is not entitled to any compensation in view of the fact that she has been granted interest also on her deposits, therefore, she has been fully compensated in terms of interest. The complaint is misconceived, devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard Sri Mujeeb Effendi, ld. Counsel for the complainant and Sri S.N. Tiwari, ld. Counsel for the opposite party. We have perused the pleadings, impugned judgment and documents on record.
It is on 4 April 1993 that the complainant protested regarding the defects present in the allotted house and requested to change the said allotted house or to refund the deposited amount along with due interest. After this she met
(8)
the Vice-Chairman of LDA on 20 February 1999 and thereafter the vice-chairman directed the Secretary to submit a report immediately after examination or refund the amount with interest. The opposite party has stated that on 8 August 1995, a letter no 4415/JS (S) has been sent to the complainant for executing the lease deed. The opposite party has said that this letter is annexure-1 but we did not find this letter with written statement . This annexure no 1 is the letter of complainant dated 30 March 2001. Annexure-2 is the letter of Lucknow development authority dated fifth of May 2001 and in this letter it has been written to the complainant that she has filed a complaint in the Hon’ble State Commission therefore the rate of interest shall be payable to you after the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission.
As per admission of the opposite party in his written statement, it is clear that the said house has been sold/allotted to Smt. Manorama Singh in April 1997. The opposite party has also stated that the rate of interest shall be given to her as per the order of the Hon’ble State Commission. Complainant has stated that her letter dated 23 February 1999 was placed before the Vice-Chairman of LDA who passed the order for submitting a report or otherwise refund the amount with interest. So this date of 20 February 1999 is an important date when the order of Vice-Chairman has been passed. There is no dispute regarding the deposited amount but the only dispute is regarding the rate of interest. The LDA has admitted that the rate of interest shall be subject to the decision of complaint case. In the refund matters the Hon’ble
(9)
National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court have given 10 to 12% interest on the deposited amount of the consumer. So after going through all the aspects and circumstances of the present case we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled interest at the rate of 10% from 24 February 1999. So the complainant is liable to be allowed partially.
ORDER
The complainant is allowed partially. The opposite party is directed to pay ₹ 340,000/– with interest at the rate of 10% from 24.02.1999 till the date of actual refund. The opposite party is also directed to pay ₹50,000/– towards mental harassment and ₹ 20,000 towards cost of the suit. All the said amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of judgment, failing which the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Rajendra Singh) (Sushil Kumar)
Presiding Member Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Rajendra Singh) (Sushil Kumar)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri, PA II
Court 3
