National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
(From the order dated 06.12.2001 in Appeal No. 207/ S C/ 1994 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow)
(Through
its Secretary) Petitioner
vs
Shri Ashok
Kumar Gandhi
Sarai Man
Singh,
BEFORE:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. B.
Shah, President
Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
Mr. Anupam Dasgupta, Member
This revision
petition impugns the judgment and order dated
2(a) This appeal was filed by the petitioner, Ghaziabad
Development Authority (GDA), against the judgment and order dated
(b) The State Commission dismissed the GDA’s appeal against the above-mentioned order of the District Forum and also modified the Forum’s order to the extent that the complainant would have the right to pay the balance amount to the GDA in lump sum or in installments.
3. The facts
of the case deserve to be recalled in some detail:
(a) Under allotment
letter dated 19.05.1986, the GDA allotted to the respondent in this petition
(hereafter referred to as the ‘allottee’) a residential plot of land,
admeasuring 460.37 sq. mtr. in Surya Nagar,
(b) The allottee
paid the first two installments amounting to Rs.62,666/-
but failed to pay the remaining on time. The GDA issued notices to the allottee
from time to time for payment of the due installments. On the allottee still
failing to pay, the GDA finally issued a notice dated
(c) However, on a
representation of the allottee against this cancellation, the Vice – Chairman,
GDA restored the allotment. Following this, the GDA office, by its letter dated
31st March 1990, asked the allottee to pay a sum of Rs. 2,41,455.25,
comprising “outstanding installments (Rs. 1,46,257.30 – 3rd to 9th
installments), interest on installments @ 12% (Rs. 35,101.95), interest on late
payment of’ installments @ 15% (Rs. 57,604.75), lease rent up to [sic]
19. 9. 86 to 31.3.91’ (Rs. 150.00), interest (Rs. 40.00) and restoration
charges (Rs. 2,301.85), within one month from the date of issue of the letter.”
(d) In
compliance with this letter, the allottee sent a bank draft for Rs. 2 lakh to
the GDA, under his letter of
FINDINGS
4(a) Two documents filed by the GDA, viz., (i) (English translation of) GDA’s letter dated 19.05.1986 relating to allotment of the plot of land to the allottee and (ii) (English translation of) the lease deed executed between the GDA and the allottee on 19.09.1986 clarify how misleading the GDA’s stand has all along been.
(b) GDA’s letter of 19.05.1986 fixes the cost of the plot at Rs.2,08,813/- and states, inter alia, as under:
“3. If the first instalment / lump sum amount not (sic) deposited in prescribed time than (sic) Authority has reserved its right to cancel the allotment or forfeit the deposited advance amount or accept the deposit with 15% p.a. interest along with first instalment or lump sum amount.
Rest instalment (sic) has to be deposited by you as follows:-
Instalment Amount Date
II instalment 20,889.30 12% p.a. interest 21.5.86
III instalment -do- is also payable 21.11.86
IV instalment -do- on premium 21.5.87
[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Details as in Exhibit… xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
IX instalment -do- 21.11.89”
This clearly brings out the internal inconsistency of the GDA’s letter, i.e., whether the rate of interest applicable on delayed payment of installments was 15% or 12% p.a.
(c)(i) The lease deed of September 1986 (Exhibit …), on the other hand, fixed the cost of the same plot at Rs. 2,08,893/- (as against Rs. 2,08,813/- in the allotment letter of 19.05.1986), acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 62,667.90 out of that and went on to provide for a schedule of payment of the remaining 7 installments, starting on or before 21.11.1986 and ending on or before 21.11.1989 21.11.89.
There is clearly an error here, though small. After deducting the initial payment of Rs. 62,667.90 from Rs. 2,08,893/-, the amount of each remaining installment (in all 7) would be Rs. 20,889.30 and not Rs. 20,893.90. Moreover, if the total cost were taken at Rs. 2,08,813, as in the letter of allotment, the amount of each remaining installment would be Rs. 20,877.87.
(c)(ii) Clause 2 (1) of the lease deed clearly stipulated payment of “interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on the sum of residual instalment from the fixed date to the actual payment thereof” if the “lessee fails to make payment of any instalment within one month from the date fixed therefor”.
(c)(iii) Clause 1 (a) of the lease deed also stipulated the payment of annual (lease) rent, in advance on the first day of April of each year at the rate of Rs. 30/- for the first 15 years, Rs. 60 for the next 15 years and so on. Clause 2 (2) of the lease deed provided, “…if the annual rent of the said lease or part thereof remains to be unpaid (sic), the Authority shall have a right to recover the (sic) interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, including the cost (sic) thereof.”
(d) Thus, the lease deed abundantly clarified that the rate of interest applicable to delayed payment of six-monthly installments was 15% p.a. whereas that applicable to delayed payment of annual lease rent was 12% p.a.
5(a) GDA’s letter of 19.05.1986 was thus confusing in respect of the applicable rate (s) of interest in case of default in payment of the dues by the allottee. This by itself constituted a deficiency in service by a public authority. The least it owed to its clients/allottees was a clear communication of the monetary demands involved in such cases.
(b) The infirmities in the letter of allotment (though rectified in the lease deed) were compounded in all subsequent demands raised by the GDA on the allottee, on account of the latter’s delay in payment of the prescribed installments and annual lease rent. The apparently arbitrary, mindless and opaque nature of the demands raised by the GDA on the allottee would be clear from the following:
(1) The
GDA issued, in quick succession, three notices dated 07.07.1987, 26.10.1987 and
19.11.1987 respectively to the allottee. These notices required the latter to
pay interest amounting to Rs. 27,853.20, Rs. 27,878.85 and 29,873.15
respectively, on delayed payment of the third and fourth installments, each of
Rs. 20,893.90. These interest demands are absurd. At 15% p.a., the interest due
because of delays in payment of the 3rd and 4th
installments, due by the dates of these notices, would be Rs. 2,611.74, Rs.
4,701.31 and Rs. 4,702.31 respectively.
(2) Secondly, each of the three notices referred to above disclosed the amounts only under the following heads:
Instalment Interest Levy/Lease Rent Other Outstanding Total Amount
Payable
Neither the amount of each installment due, nor the period of delay with reference to the due date(s), nor the rate of interest applied are mentioned in these notices.
(3) Thirdly,
and most important, in its letter of 31.03.1990 regarding restoration of the
plot to the allottee, GDA’s total demand of Rs. 2,41,455/- included an amount
of Rs. 35,101.95 by way of interest @ 12% p. a. and also a sum of Rs. 57,604.75
as interest @ 15% p.a., both for delay in payment of installments. As in the
case of the notices issued earlier, no details were furnished on the
all-important matter of calculation of interest. In view of the explicit provisions
of the lease deed, interest was chargeable for delayed payments of the
installments only @ 15% p.a. Hence the interest demand of Rs. 35,101.95 @ 12%
p.a. was just not payable. Further, a simple calculation would show that the
interest @ 15% p.a. on delayed payment of the balance 7 installments of Rs.
20,889.30 each, as on 31.03.1990, would come to a sum no more than Rs. 40,820
approximately, and not Rs. 57,604.75. Therefore, the total demand for
restoration of the allotment should have been no more than Rs. 1,89,600/-, after rounding off. Thus, had the errors
apparent been rectified by the GDA in time, the amount payable by the allottee
would have been in no case such as to entitle the GDA to return the draft of
Rs. 2 lakh sent by the allottee to the GDA on 30.04.1990, on grounds of partial
payment. The question of the allottee having to seek redressal in this
matter before any Forum would then have simply not arisen and neither the
former nor the District Forum nor the State Commission nor this Commission nor
the GDA itself would have had to spend time and money on these protracted
proceedings. What is this to be termed, if not grossly serious - in fact,
deliberately mischievous - deficiency of service?
6. In compliance with our orders during the course of the proceedings before this Commission, the allottee - complainant paid to the GDA the sum of Rs. 2,41,455/-. After much wrangling, the GDA thereafter handed over possession of the plot to him.
7. In view of the foregoing, we order that –
(i) the GDA shall rework, according to the lease deed dated 19th September 1986, the amounts due from the allottee, i.e., the correct amount of the third to the ninth installments @ Rs. 20,889.30 each; the exact period of delay by the allottee in payment of each of these 7 installment; interest leviable @ 15 per cent per annum for the said delay in paying each installment, with 31.03.1990 being reckoned as the final due date of payment; the amount of annual lease rent due as on 31.03.1990; the interest due thereon @ 12 per cent per annum for the delay as mentioned above; and the amount of restoration charge, if at all due as per GDA’s terms and conditions for restoration of allotment of this plot and refund the excess amount out of Rs. 2,41,455; and
(ii) pay to the allottee a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for wrongly returning the bank draft of Rs. 2 lakh sent by him to the GDA way back in March 1990 and causing him the consequential harassment, and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs, both (i) and (ii) above to be paid within 4 weeks from the date of this order.
8. We also observe that had the District Forum or the State Commission gone through the lease deed, the later proceedings could have been avoided.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
…………………………….J
(M. B. Shah)
President
………………………………
(Rajyalakshmi Rao)
Member
………………………………
(Anupam Dasgupta)
Member