NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO.1197 OF 1998
(From the order dated 25.5.98 in First Appeal No. 24/98 & 58 other appeals
of the State Commission, Haryana)
Haryana
Urban Development Authority .. Petitioner
Vs.
Darsh
Kumar ..
Respondent
REVISION PETITION
NO. 856 OF
1997
(From the order dated 31.3.1997 in First Appeal No. 58/96
of the State Commission, Haryana)
Haryana
Urban Development Authority ..
Petitioner
Vs.
Saroj
Bala .. Respondent
REVISION PETITION
NO. 1303 OF 1999
(From the order dated 23.4.1999 in A. No. 527/SC/99
of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh)
Ghaziabad
Development Authority ..
Petitioner
Vs.
Pawan
Kumar Verma .. Respondent
REVISION PETITION
NO. 703 OF
2001
(From the order dated 3.10.2000 in Appeal No.1600/SC/97
of the State Commission, Uttar Paradesh)
Ghaziabad
Development Authority ..
Petitioner
Vs.
Balbir
Singh .. Respondent
A N D
REVISION PETITION
NO. 1274 OF
1998
(From the order dated 3.10.2000 in C.A. No.63 & 64/94
of the State Commission, Himachal Pradesh Paradesh)
Himachal
Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran
Through
its Chief Administrator ..
Petitioner
Vs.
Ex.
Captain S.P. Moudgil ..
Respondent
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.L. CHAUDHRY, MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA,
MEMBER.
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.
MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER
For
the Petitioner in R.P. No.1197/98:
Mr. Ajay Siwach,
Advocate
For
the Petitioner in RP No.856/97 : Mr. Sandeep Srivastava and
Mr. Pankaj Makhuja, Advocates
For
the respondent in RP No. 1197/98: N
E M O
For
the respondent in RP 856/97 :
In person
For
the petitioner in RP1303/99 : Mr. Rakesh U. Upadhyay,
Advocate.
For
the petitioner in RP 703/2001 : Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha,
Advocate.
For
the respondent in RP1303/99 : Mr.
Beqrar, Advocate
for
the respondent in RP 703/2001 : Mr. Arvind Garg,
Advocate.
For
the petitioner in RP 1274/98 : Mr. H.S. Puri and
Mr.
Ujjwal Bannerjee, Advocates
For
the Respondent in RP 1274/98 : N E
M O
ORDER
Dated the 31st August, 2001
PER JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT.
The question which was
before the State Commission and now before us for decision is:
“If HUDA
(Haryana Urban Development Authority,
GDA (Ghaziabad Development Authority) or any other Urban Development Authority
is required to pay interest as a result of non or delayed
allotment of plot (s) or flat(s) or house(s) on the amounts deposited by the allottee at the time of original
allotment of the plot/flat/house, then at what rate and upto what period
interest would be payable on account of undue delay in the allotment and
delivery of possession of the plot/flat/house?
To
consider this question, this Commission
heard the parties in five cases:
(i) In the case of
Darsh Kumar, respondent- complainant (Revision Petition No.1197/98), was
allotted on 21.2.1990 by HUDA residential plot bearing No.192 valuing
Rs.1,99,400/- in Police Lines Area, Hissar in the State of Haryana. Respondent immediately paid a sum of Rs.19,940/- being 10% of the
cost of the plot and remaining 15% of the amount was paid by him on
22.3.1990. Thereafter Respondent
deposited the instalments as required
under the letter of allotment. Under
the terms thereof, he was to be given possession within 30 days from the date
of payment by him of 25% of the
amount. No such possession was given to him
though he had paid even the
full price of the plot. Complaining
deficiency in service he, therefore, sought interest @ 18% per annum on the
amount so paid by him. It was
contended by HUDA that possession of the plot could be given only after the
area had been developed. 25% of the amount was deposited by the
respondent by 22.3. 1990. He was to be
given possession within 30 days
from that date.
District Forum on
a complaint filed
by respondent held
that
one year period was reasonable after the date of deposit of 25% of amount
for HUDA to deliver possession.
It, therefore, directed that
respondent be paid interest @ 18% per
annum on the entire amount deposited by him w.e.f. 22.3.1991 till the date of offer of possession of the plot on 26.9.94 to the allottee. Order of the District Forum was challanged by HUDA
before the Haryana State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum.
(ii) In the case of Saroj Bala (Revision Petition
No.856/97), the plot measuring 420 sq.
meters in Sector 21 at Panchkula was
allotted on 21.7.1987 at the price of Rs.1,30,515/- . In 1992
the price of the plot was enhanced to Rs.1,60,004.40. Saroj Bala paid each and every instalment including the enhanced price charged
from her by 28.6.1993. She was given
possession of the plot only on 27.11.1996.
It was contended by HUDA that possession could not be handed over to Saroj Bala as there was
encroachment on the plot
by jhuggi dwellers. Complaining
deficiency in service, Saroj
Bala claimed
for escalated price in the construction amounting to Rs.2,13,000/-, interest
@ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- amounting to Rs.43,200/-, loss of rent @ 1,000/- per month
amounting to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-
on account of mental harassment, all totalling Rs.4,26,200/-. District
Forum allowed the complaint and directed payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited w.e.f. 1.11.1992 till the
date of delivery of possession of the
plot to Saroj Bala, Rs.2,00,000/- on
account of escalation in the cost of
construction of house and Rs.50,000/- towards mental torture and physical
harassment caused to her. Claim of
Rs.20,000/- on account of rent was, however, declined on the ground that
interest had been allowed on the amount paid by the complainant. On appeal filed by HUDA, State Commission
observed that it could not be doubted that
cost of construction had arisen considerably during the last 10
years, but that the interest @ 18% per
annum on the amount paid by the complainant was sufficient compensation for the
same. State Commission therefore,
while allowing the interest @ 18% per annum directed that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by District forum on account of
escalation be deleted. State
Commission reduced the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-.
(iii) In the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh
- Revision Petition No.703/2001, respondent/complainant was on 10.2.1989 allotted a plot measuring 200
sq. mt. under Govindpuram Scheme. Respondent/complainant deposited full amount
from time to time as demanded by
petitioner - Ghaziabad Development Authority (for short ‘GDA’). Petitioner-GDA informed the
respondent on 4.1.94 that
he had been allotted a plot
bearing No.D-594. This was
followed by another letter dated 4.2.95 informing the respondent that due
to some reason possession of the
allotted plot could not be given and he
was allotted plot no.C-148 instead which
the respondent/complainant did not like.
After some correspondence between the parties
respondent/complainant was allotted
plot No.D-494, but an amount of
Rs.5000/- was demanded by way of ‘Cheque Fee’ which was also deposited.
Possession of the plot was given on 14.8.96 only after
respondent/complainant moved the
District Forum complaining deficiency in service
in not handing over the plot .
District Forum awarded interest @ 18% for the period 1.4.94 to 14.8.96, directed refund of Rs.5000/- charged as ‘cheque
fee’ and thus allowed the complaint with cost of Rs.2000/-. In appeal, the Uttar Pradesh State
Commission dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the order of District
Forum. Against this, revision petition
has been filed on which notice was issued
limited to the point of rate of
interest awarded by both the lower fora.
(iv) In GDA vs. Pawan Kumar Verma (Revision Petition No. 1303/1999) respondent/complainant Pawan Verma applied
for a plot in Govindpuram Scheme and
got a reservation letter on 10.2.1990 and was promised possession in the year 1991. Respondent/complainant
deposited full cost of the plot by
7.1.92 but then not finding himself anywhere
near getting the possession, moved the District Forum, where during the pendency of the proceedings
before the District Forum, respondent/complainant got the possession of the plot only on
21.4.1997. District Forum directed
payment of interest @ 15% from 7.1.1993
till the date of giving
possession, on the amount deposited by the respondent/complainant with the petitioner-GDA and cost of
Rs.1000/-. Against this an appeal was filed by the petitioner-GDA which was dismissed. It is against this order that revision
petition has been filed before this Commission.
(v) In the Revision Petition filed by the Himachal Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (HPUDA) (RP
1274/98) against the order passed in
appeal by Himachal Pradesh State Commission there is also challenge to award of interest @ 18% per
annum. In this case are that the respondent-complainant had
booked for a Type-A house under a Self Financing Scheme floated by Shimla
Development Authority, a predecessor of
H.P. Urban Development Authority, in
February, 1986. Likely date of
completion of the houses was end
December, 1988. Cost of the
house was fixed at Rs.1,44,000/- which the respondent/complainant paid by 9th
December, 1988 in instalments, some of them
even along with interest @
18% per annum on account of delay in
payment. It would appear that even
after the expiry of three years
complainant was not given possession or the house. He approached the Shimal Development Authority predecessor of HPUAD and was informed on
14.7.1993 of price escalation to Rs.2,56,304/- . It was further informed on 9.9.93
of the escalation in the price of the house to Rs.2,87,180/-. Complaining deficiency of service,
complainant approached the District Forum.
He prayed that he may be given possession of the house and that HPUDA be
directed to refund Rs.1,29,000/- which
was the interest charged by it on delayed instalment @ 18% per annum. Complainant wanted refund of this amount with interest at the same rate of 18%
per annum. Complainant said that he
was ready to pay Rs.30,876/- being the
cost of enhanced compensation of land which was paid by HPUAD. His prayer was that this amount might be adjusted from the amount to be
refunded to him. District Forum did not
go into the pricing of the cost of the house but directed payment of interest @ 18% per
annum on the amount deposited by the
complainant from the dates of respective deposits upto 14.7.93 when letter of
possession was issued to the complainant.
HPUDA filed appeal against the order of the District Forum to the State
Commission which was partially
accepted. State Commission reduced the
period for which interest was payable
but maintained the award of interest @
18% per annum. Aggrieved, HPUDA has
filed this petition.
Appearing on behalf of HUDA, learned counsel Mr. Bana and others brought to our notice three orders of the Supreme Court and one order of this
Commission in support of the fact that rate of interest of 18% granted by the State Commission could
not be sustained before us. He drew
our attention to the case of HUDA vs. M.S. Lamba (SLP (Civil) No. 14871 of
1994 ) decided by the Supreme Court on
7.11.96 wherein rate of interest granted @ 18% was reduced to 12% on the amount
deposited by Lamba -the
respondent. He also referred to another order of the Supreme Court in the case
of HUDA & Anr. vs.
R.K. Goel (SLP (Civil) No.3324/97) decided on 24.10.97 wherein the rate of interest was
reduced from 18% to 10%. Mr.
Bana then referred to an order
of this Commission in HUDA Vs. Krishan Lal Kalra decided on 3.11.98
where the interest in similar
cases was reduced from 15% to 12% and
finally reference was made
to the order of Supreme Court passed in
GDA vs. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 113
wherein rate of interest payable in such cases was fixed at 12%. It was submitted that at times delay in giving possession was beyond
the control of HUDA and grant of
interest at a higher rate will
be detrimental to the interest of a public body like HUDA which is engaged in developing urban areas at no profit-no-loss basis. It was thus submitted that the rate of
interest needed to be kept @ 10% as per policy of HUDA.
In
GDA vs. Balbir Singh (Revision Petition
No.703/2001), Mr. Kulshreshta appearing for GDA submitted that GDA
was engaged in construction and
development activities in Ghaziabad (in
the State of Uttar Pradesh) and itself
was borrowing @ 16% per annum from various financial institutions
for the purpose. According to him GDA
works at ‘no profit-no loss basis’.
His argument was that for the
purpose of finding out the starting point for any scheme in
the Brochure it should be read as a whole. We are concerned here with the Brochure
relating to Govindpuram Scheme. Mr.
Kulshreshtha said that the reasoning
of the State Commission to award
interest @ 18% just because
GDA’s penal rate of interest is 18% was not correct and distinguishing the instant case from G.DA vs. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC
113 or
Sovintorg (India) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, New Delhi - (1999) 6 SCC
406 was not correct. He said the
case of GDA Vs. Union of India (2000) SCC 113 was a complete answer as
regards the contract between the
GDA and allottees and equity demands that rate of interest to be
given to allottees be kept @ 12%.
He also cited the case of Smt. Kausnuma Begum and Others Vs. National
Insurance Company 2000 (1) SCALE page 1 wherein Supreme Court found grant of
simple interest @ 12% as
reasonable. Then submission of Mr.
Kulshreshtha was that as a result of
stay granted by Allahabad High Court
on new construction in Govindpuram Scheme for the period 24.4.91 to 16.12.93 no interest should be payable for this period
as no construction activity could
be undertaken in the light of the stay
granted by the High court. He said
delay occurring on this was for reasons
beyond the controL of GDA.
In GDA Vs. Pawan Kumar Verma (RP No.1303/1999),
Mr. R.U. Upadhyay, also counsel for the
GDA, while supporting all the points advanced by Mr. Kulshreshtha, further added that the Supreme Court in Prashant Kumar Shau Vs.
GDA - JT 2000 (4) SC 607 had held
that where an allottee
defaulted in payment of instalments,
GDA could not be held responsible
for any deficiency. He also
argued that where allottee was
requested by GDA to take
possession and the allottee with the sole motive of earning interest was evading taking possession, no interest
should be granted in such a case. He then said that where allottee
surrenders a plot, he should not
be given any interest on the refunded amount after deduction as per
provision in Brochure (Govindpuram
Scheme) . We, however, need not
consider these submissions as there are no such findings either by the District Forum or State
Commission in favour of GDA. It is then the case of Mr. Upadhyay that
State Commission’s rationale of imposing 18% rate of interest on the basis that GDA also charges 18% rate of interest was not sustainable on facts.
In Hire Purchase Scheme rate of interest levied was 15% and it was only if the instalments
were delayed that
the allottee was charged addition 3%
for that instalment amount during
the period of delay. He argued
that the Supreme Court in most recent judgement in the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum Vs.
National Insurance Co. reported in 2001
(1) SCALE page 1 held that instead interest @
12% , courts shall award interest @ 9%. It was submitted that
for GDA it was not a commercial
transaction and as per Section 34
of Code of Civil Procedure,
maximum interest payable by GDA
should be 6% per annum. He reiterated that lead case was GDA
Vs. Union of India where rate of interest awarded was 12% and was considered to be equitable and reasonable and if rate of
interest of 18% awarded by the
State Commission is upheld, the same
shall adversely affect public interest
in general.
In H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Ex. Captain S.P. Moudgil (Revision Petition No.1274/98)
it was submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner Mr. H.S.
Puri and others, that it was true
that in spite of clear mention
of delivery of possession by December, 1988, possession of the house could be
given only in 1993 as the project could only be completed by December, 1992 on
account of delayed receipt of instalments, litigation by the land owners land
acquisition proceedings, labour disputes, disputes with the contractors and unexpected weather conditions.
It was a Self-Financing
Scheme and if there was delay in delivery of possession, contribution of the
complainant(s) was not little. Had they
been paying the instalments in time,
Scheme could have been completed
much earlier. Question of payment of
interest in the case does not arise as
no such clause exists in the Brochure
of the Scheme, so the argument proceeds.
Escalation of cost was said to be justified. Finally, it
was argued that if any interest has to be awarded, then it should be limited to
12% as laid down by the Supreme Court in GDA vs. Union of India
(2000) 6 SCC 113.
On
behalf of the respondens/complainants it was
submitted by learned counsel Mr. Garg and Mr.
Beqrar and others that there
were numerous cases in which the Supreme Court had upheld the grant of
interest @ 18% . They referred to
cases of HUDA Vs. Rajnish Chander
Sharda, ( Civil Appeal no.5970 of 1995)
wherein award of interest @ 18%
by this Commission against HUDA
was upheld and GDA Vs. Dhanesh Chand Goel, (SLP (Civil) No.11315/2000) wherein
the Supreme Court while
confirming grant of interest @ 18% by MRTP
Commission against GDA observed that on the given facts award of interest @ 18% was
reasonable one. Their main
contention was that the Urban
Development Authorities like HUDA, GDA
and others keep money with them for a period which is much after the expiry
of promised period of handing over of
the possession. Parties have borrowed
money at much higher rates in the expectation that they will have a shelter
over their head but at times possession in some cases comes too late, that by that time some allottees die and some
even superannuate who then start
living in a hired accommodation causing them lot of mental and physical harassment and agony. Cost of
construction also keeps going
upwards. Urban authorities keep
raising the prices upwards thus doubly
jeopardizing the interest of the allottees. They not only have to pay higher
price in the case of plot but also
spend more to complete the
house. If GDA can charge interest @ 18% for delayed payment,
it should also be directed to pay interest @ 18% interest for
money lying with them. It was submitted that the order passed in
Rajnish Chnder Sharda case should be
made applicable mutis mutandis in all
cases of delayed delivery of
possession either of plot or flat/house i.e. not only granting interest @
18% but also awarding compensation to
cover increased cost of house
building in appropriate case and that
heavy costs should be awarded to the respondents/complainants in order
to discourage HUDA/GDA and others
from dragging the consumers/allottees to protracted litigation.
On
behalf of the respondent(s) in Himachal
Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Captain S.P. Moudgil (RP 1274/98) it was
submitted that there was
inordinate delay in handing over the
possession in this case. Against
promised delivery of possession by December, 1988, possession was given in July
1993. In spite of instalments paid,
some of them with penal interst @ 18%,
it did not behove of H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran to sit over
his money. Internal disputes of the Authority are its internal problem and of no
concern of the allottee. It is
presumed that with past experience of the Authority all these points would have been factored into, while determining
the date of handing over the possession. The argument of the Pradhikaran that since there was no clause of payment
of interest to be paid by it in the Brochure, is not maintainable in view the
decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of GDA vs. Union of India wherein it was held that
even when there is no mention of such a clause, interest need to be paid
by the Public Authority such as GDA (in the instance case HPUDA). Supreme Court and National Commission have
granted 18% rate of interest in several
cases. Thus in order to cover the cost
escalation complainant need to be paid interest at a rate which neutralises
cost escalation. In the instant case,
cost of the houses were almost doubled
and it is admitted that this fact
cannot be gone into, but the law
of the land permits the allottee to be compensated by way of interest at a
level which compensates him and helps
in meeting the ever escalating
costs. 12% rate of interest granted by
Supreme Court in GDA vs. Union of India was not final in that, it left this to be determined on the facts of circumstances of each case. This, it was submitted, was a fit case where
both the District Forum and the State Commission rightly awarded an
amount equivalent to 18% rate of
interest on the amount deposited by
the complainant, by way of
compensation.
Before going into merits of the
cases, a peep into the perspective
shall be
in order. First we take the case of HUDA.
Haryana
Urban Development Authority (for short ‘HUDA’)
has been constituted under the
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. HUDA has been established
for undertaking urban development in the State of Haryana and other connected matters. Statement of objects and reasons for
enacting the Act, makes it amply clear that HUDA was constituted for ensuring speedy and economic development of urban areas in the
State of Haryana.
Regulation 3 provides
for mode of disposal of land or building of the HUDA. Under Regulation 4, a tentative
price/premium for the disposal of land
or building by HUDA
shall be such as may be determined by HUDA taking into consideration the
cost of land, estimated cost of development, cost of building and other direct and indirect charges, as may be
determined by HUDA from time to time.
Procedure has been prescribed for sale or lease of land or building by allotment or by auction.
Regulation 12 provides that in
case price or any instalment thereof is not paid by the transferee within
30 days from the date it falls due, the
Estate Officer shall proceed against
such transferee in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the
Act. Section 17 provides for resumption
and forfeiture for breach of
conditions of transfer. We
quote this Section:
“17. Resumption and
forfeiture for breach of conditions of transfer- (1) where any transferee makes default in the payment
of any consideration money, or any instalment on account of the sale of any
land or building, or both, under section 15, the Estate Officer may, by notice
in writing, call upon the transferee to show
cause within a period of thirty days, why a penalty which shall not
exceed ten percent of the amount due from the transferee, be not imposed upon
him.
(2) After considering the cause,
if any, shown by the transferee and
after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, the
Estate officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order imposing
the penalty and direct that the amount
of money due along with the penalty shall be
paid by the transferee within such period as may be specified in the
order.
(3) If the transferee fails to pay the amount due together with the
penalty in accordance with the order made under sub-section (2), or commits a
breach of any other condition of sale, the Estate officer may, by notice in
writing , call upon the transferee to
show cause within a period of thirty days, why an order of resumption of the land or building, or both,
as the case may be, and forfeiture of the whole, or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect
thereof which in no case shall exceed ten per cent of the total amount of the
consideration money, interest and other
dues payable in respect of the sale of the land or building or both should not
be made”.
Under Regulation 13 possession of the land shall be delivered to the transferee as
soon as the development work in the area
where the land is situated are complete. However, in case of sale/lease
of undeveloped land/building , possession thereof shall be delivered within 90 days of the date of allotment.
Regulation 14
provides for surrender of land by
the transferee. Regulation 16 prohibits the use of land
or building for a purpose other
than that for which it had been allotted to him. Under Regulation 17 transferee shall complete the building
within a period of two years from the date of offer of possession of the
land. This time limit may be extended by the Estate Officer, if he is satisfied that failure to
complete the building, was due to causes beyond the control of the
transferee.
We
may also note that under Section 14 of
the Act, State Government may, at the request of HUDA, when any land is
required for the purposes of this Act, proceed to acquire it under the
provisions of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended from time to time) and
on payment by the HUDA of the
compensation awarded under that Act and
of any other charges incurred in
acquiring the land, the land shall vest
with HUDA.
Section 15 authorises
HUDA to dispose of the land. This
Section again we quote:
“15. Disposal of land. - (1)
subject to any directions given by the State Government under this Act and the
provisions of sub-section (5), the Authority may dispose of -
(a)
any
land acquired by it or transferred to it by the State Government without undertaking or carrying out any development thereon; or
(b) any such land after
undertaking or carrying out such development as it thinks fit, to such persons,
in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions, as it considers
expedient for securing development.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as enabling the authority to dispose
of land by way of gift, but
subject to this condition, reference in this Act to the disposal of the land shall be construed as reference to the disposal thereof in any manner, whether by
way of sale, exchange or lease or by the creation of any easement right or privilege or otherwise.
(3) Subject to the provisions
hereinbefore, contained, the Authority may sell lease, or otherwise
transfer whether by auction, allotment
or otherwise, any land or building
belonging to it on such terms and conditions as it may, by regulations,
provide.
GDA also was created under U.P. Urban Planning
and Development Act and GDA has taken
up the work of construction and
development of area vested in them in a phased manner borrowing funds from
financial institutions. GDA works on no profit - no loss basis for the welfare
of the public at large. Terms
and Conditions of plots
plots/flats/houses are given in the Brochure issued in respect of each Scheme
floated by them.
If
we examine the Govindpuram Scheme (Plots/ Houses Scheme: Code 537, 538 and 539)
it appears to be a self contained scheme.
Conditions are stringent. There
is no scope for any negotiation by the prospective allottee. He is to sign on the dotted lines. Scheme therefore, has to be construed liberally in favour of the allottee.
Under
clause 3.30, approximate cost of each plot/house is given in column 5 of table 1. The cost of the ground floor house on the corner plot will be 10% extra of the premium of
land. It is mentioned in the note
under this clause that cost of the unit will be decided finally basing on the
index of State planning Institute.
There is thus enough safeguard
that cost cannot be arbitrarily increased
of the plot or the house.
Plots/houses
are being constructed under lump sum
self financing plan and hire purchase plan. An applicant has to pay registration amount along with the application. He has also to pay
registration fee along with the application. Then within 30 days from the date of
reservation letter applicant has to pay reservation amount. Balance cost of the plot/house is
payable in yearly instalments. All
the payments are mentioned in the table-1 annexed to the scheme. No interest is payable on instalments under
self-financing scheme and 15% interest is payable on instalments under hire
purchase scheme. If the amount payable is not paid within the
prescribed time limit, penal interest @ 18% per annum shall be payable along
with the payable amounts. Grace period
of one month is given for payment of reservation amount/instalments after
the due date. However, if any previous amount of the instalment stands unpaid
on the due date, no grace period is admissible
on the current instalment. In
case payment is made after the grace period,
penal interest is payable from the
original due date of payment.
Penal interest will be payable for
a period of maximum three months.
Then come clause 3.66 which says if the payment
is not made within three months after its due date along with penal
interest, the allotment shall be
treated as cancelled without notice.
Clause
4 of the scheme provides the eligibility conditions. One of such condition is that the applicant
must not own any residential house or plot in
full or in part on lease hold or free hold basis in Ghaziabad. Either in
his/her own name or in the name of his/her, wife/husband or in the name of
his/her minor or dependent children.
Only one house/plot is to be allotted
to the applicant in his/her name or in the name of any dependent members of the family.
Clause
4.6 provides that income limits are applicable in these schemes. As to what
income means, it has been defined. Clause
6 provides for quota of reservation
in various
categories. Last date for making
application is 31.10.1988. Procedure
is prescribed as to how draw is to be made and how amount is to be returned to
unsuccessful applicants.
Clause
15 says that the plots/houses are
expected to be completed within two years.
Houses cannot be used for other
than residential purposes by the by the
allottee or his tenant. If any change of use for commercial or other purposes is desired, special permission is to be obtained from the Vice
Chairman, GDA.
Clause 11 provides that if it is found that
the applicant has given false
information or suppressed any
material fact, the reservation will be liable to be cancelled without making
any reference to the applicant and he/she
will be debarred from participating in future draws. Further 25%
of registration amount shall be forfeited.
All public Urban Development Authorities follow somewhat the same scheme for allotment of
plots/flats/houses and as it is seen
from the Govindpuram Scheme of
GDA it is heavily loaded in favour of GDA.
Question of award of interest was considered
by this Commission in the case of Punjab Urban Planning & Development
Authority Vs. Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon
(First Appeal No.157 of 1999) decided
on 1.8.2001. In that case
there was delay of considerable years in the allotment of land
to the respondent- complainant.
There was certainly deficiency
in service in depriving the complainant
of the land for all these years with the result that the complainant could not construct her house
for her own residence and meanwhile
cost of construction escalated.
Complainant led evidence to show that
there would be difference in the
cost of construction amounting to
Rs.9.00 lakhs if she had
constructed the house when the
land was originally allotted to
her. No evidence in rebuttal was led by
Punjab Urban Planning & Development
Authority. This Commission,
therefore, awarded the amount of
difference of cost in construction. No
interest was, however, awarded which was allowed by the State commission @ 18%
per annum on the amount of cost of the
plot. This Commission observed as
under:
“When court is giving
escalated price for the construction, it does not seem appropriate to give
interest on the amounts paid towards purchase price of the plot to bring the
value of the plot at the market rate on the date of possession. It has also to be kept in mind that there
has been manifold increase in the price of the land”.
This Commission, however, allowed
compensation for the expenses incurred by the complainant in seeking possession
of the land. It was pointed out that
award of interest at a particular rate should be such as to compensate the
allottee if he(she) is deprived of the allotted piece of land and is to go
elsewhere in the same or nearby area to buy a plot of land of the same measurement.
It will thus be seen that this
Commission did not award interest @ 18%
per annum merely on the deposit made
but took into account the cost
escalation for construction of
the house because of delayed
possession.
We may now consider some of the decisions on the question of rate of interest for the period for which it should be
payable as set out in the beginning of this order.
In
Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta - (1994) 1 SCC 243
[two Judges Bench
decision). Supreme court examined right
and power of the National Commission to
award exemplary damages
and accountability of
statutory
authorities. Supreme court considered various aspect of
the Act and then said that after having examined the wide reach of the Act and
jurisdiction of the National Commission
to entertain complaint, the Commission
or Forum under the Act was entitled to award not only value of the
goods or services but also to
compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. In the case before it,
Supreme Court approved of the order of the Commission, held that “the
action of the appellant amounted to harassment, mental torture and agony
of the respondent”, therefore,
it directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-. In the other case that was before it Supreme
Court approved order of this Commission
directing the Bangalore Development
Authority to pay Rs.2,446/- to the consumer “for the expenses incurred by him in getting the lease -cum-sale agreement registered as it
was additional expenditure for alternative site to him. No misfeasance was found”. The moment
the Authority came to know of the mistake committed by it, it took immediate action by allotting
alternative site to the respondent, which was
compensation for exact loss suffered by the respondent. Then the court examined question as to who
was to bear the loss whether the
instrumentality of the State or its functionary. Supreme Court said :
“When the Court directs
payment of damages or compensation
against the State the ultimate sufferer
is the common man. It is the
tax payer’s money which is paid for
inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their
duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the
Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation
for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of the course should be recorded carefully or material and convincing circumstances and
not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the
amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the
same from those who are found responsible
for such unpardonable
behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one
functionaries”.
In the
case of Ghaziabad Development authority Vs. Union of India &
Anr. (2000) 3 Comp LJ 402 (SC) there was challenge to the order passed by
the MRTP Commission where it was
concerned with the delay in allotment
of plot of land. Three questions arose
before the Supreme Court:
(i)
Whether
compensation can be awarded for ‘mental agony’ suffered by the claimants?
(ii)
Whether
in the absence of any contract or promise held out by the Ghaziabad Development
Authority any amount by way of interest can be directed to be paid on the
amount found due and payable by the Authority to the claimants.
(iii) If so, the rate at which the
interest can be ordered to be paid?
In distinguishing the decision in the case
of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (2 Judges Bench) the Court observed as under:
“The judgement clearly showed the liability having been fixed not within the realm of the law of
contracts, but under the principles of
administrative law. We do not find any
such case having been pleaded much
less made out before the MRTP Commission.
Indeed no such finding have been arrived at by the MRTP Commission as
was reached by the Supreme court in
this case”.
Supreme
Court therefore, deleted the
compensation of Rs.50,000/- for
mental agony suffered by the claimant which was awarded by the MRTP Commission. On
interest the Supreme Court
said the interest could be awarded in appropriate case. It referred to another case of Sovintorg (India) Ltd. Vs.
State Bank of India, New Delhi - (1999) 6 SCC 406 where the rate of interest at 15% per annum was considered adequate to serve
the ends of justice, the National Commission having awarded interest @ 12% per
annum. It said that the Bench in that
case was apparently influenced by the fact that the claimant had
suffered winding up proceedings under
the Companies Act and the defendant must be made to share part of
the blame. It further said in the case before it, parties had not rendered
any evidence enabling formation of
opinion on the rate of interest which
could be considered ideal to
be adopted and that rate of interest
awarded should neither be too high nor too low. Court therefore, in its opinion thought
that awarding interest @ 12% per annum
would be just and proper and will meet the ends of justice. The Court also
observed that broadly the principle
underlying assessment of damages is to put the aggrieved party monetarily in the same position as far as
possible in which it would have been if the contract would have been
performed. No doubt the purpose of an
award of damages for breach of contract is , so far as money payment can do
this, to place the consumer in the position he would have been, had the contract been performed according to
his expectations. It also referred to
decision of Court of Appeal stating that the Court of Appeal had
refused to award damages for injured feeling to a wrongful dismissed
employee and confirmed that damages
for anguish and vexation caused by breach of contract cannot be
awarded in an ordinary commercial transaction. We may, however, add in
Barnstein Vs. Pamson Motors
(Golden Greaves ) Ltd. - (1987) 2
ALL ER 220, it was held that physical inconvenience and distress resulting from
the purchase of a car which breaks down
shortly after purchase and the cost of hiring a replacement while the
car is being repaired may all be regarded as losses which arise naturally from
the retailers breach of the implied conditions of satisfactory quality.
In the
case of Rajnish Chander Sharda Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority - II
(1995) 70 (NC), National Commission directed that HUDA should allot and
give possession of the plot of 250 Sq.
yards to the complainant in the same
sector or neighbouring sector which had been reasonably developed
and where the complainant could undertake construction without delay. It said that HUDA shall not be entitled to
any extra price for the allotment of the plot
which would be in lieu of what had been allotted to him
earlier National Commission further
said that HUDA should pay compensation
for escalation in the cost of
construction from 1982 to 1994 in
accordance with the construction done under
“Unified Building By Laws National Capital Territory of
Delhi”. In this case Rajnish Chander Sharda was allotted 250 sq.
yards plot on 10.5.79 by HUDA in a particular sector. When the complainant asked for possession of the plot in
1982 so as to construct a house thereon
he was given possession certificate.
He approached the contractor and
architect for the purpose of construction of a house but when he asked
HUDA for actual physical possession it was discovered that a factory existed on the plot.
He was told
that factory will
be removed by December, 1982.
However, subsequently he was advised to ask for an alternative plot as
the plot allotted to him could not be
vacated. Complainant reported these facts to the Executive Officer in
September, 1983, no alternative
allotment was made. On the
other hand, HUDA asked him in 1986
a sum of Rs.3,455/- towards enhancement of the compensation for the
acquisition of the said plot whose
possession could not be given to him because of the factory thereon. After a lapse of 11 years HUDA
on 18.5.90 allotted a plot in
another sector to the complainant.
This was done unilaterally
without the consent of the complainant.
Though the allotment was made in
1990 possession could be offered to the
complainant on 26.4.1993. But
then again the area was surrounded by factory. Complainant asked for an alternative plot in
another sector. Instead of replying to
his request, HUDA issued a possession
certificate on 25.8.1993. When the
complainant contacted architect for
getting the house plan sanctioned it
was told by HUDA that the plot belonged to another person and was not available
for allotment, building plan therefore, could not be approved. In sheer exasperation complainant came before the National Commission in October, 1993. He
claimed damages for increase in the
cost of construction from 1982
to November 1993, compensation for mental agony and physical torture ,
rent for accommodation for his family
members from 1982 @ Rs.1600/- per month, expenditure on journeys undertaken
and correspondence with HUDA and payment of fees to the architect and contractor;
after considering the matter in
depth National Commission gave the award as under:
“We direct that
HUDA should pay compensation for escalation in the cost of construction from
1982 to 1994 in accordance with
construction done under : “UNIFIED BUILDING BY LAWS NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI”. Though the complainant can
construct three and a half storeys
including basement, the maximum ground coverage (viz.60%) and the F.A.R.
(Floor Area Ratio viz. 160) has to be limited to as laid down in the Bye Laws,
1992. The expenditure incurred on
provision of services (Electrical, Sanitary, Water supply etc.) over and above
the bare cost of the construction has
also to be added in arriving at the cost of construction in 1982 and 1994. The escalation in the cost of construction
of a house should be worked out on the basis of the cost of construction index
of the C.P.W.D. in 1984 and 1994.
The compensation for escalation should, therefore, be got
determined through the good offices of the C.P.W.D.
Rs.11,00,000/-
claimed for mental agony, torture due to mismanagement of HUDA etc. at the rate
of Rs.1 lakh per year. This is
exorbitant. We consider it reasonable
to allow a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.
Rs. 2 lakhs
claimed by way of rent from 1982 onwards at the rate of Rs.1,600/- per month for having to live in a rented
accommodation. Instead we direct that
complainant shall be paid interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited from time
to time by the complainant from 1979 onwards till a anew plot is allottted and
possession given.
Rs.50,000/-
claimed as expenditure for chasing the case with HUDA for a period of 14
years. This is reasonable and is
allowed.
Rs.7,800/-
claimed as payments made to the Architect and contractors etc. This appears reasonable and is allowed”.
Against this order HUDA went in appeal before the Supreme Court ( Civil Appeal
No.5970 of 1995 - Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Rajnish Chander
Sharda, decided on January 12, 2000 by three Judges
Bench). The Bench upheld the order of the National Commission and
held as under:
“There is no
merit in this appeal. Considering what
has been stated by the appellant in its own written statement filed before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, we express our surprise that it should have filed this
appeal at all. Learned counsel for the
appellant now desires to confine the
appeal only to the interest that has accumulated because of the stay order that
was passed at the appellants’s instance
by this Court. In the order of
the National Commission it is stated that the respondent had claimed
compensation for having being compelled to live in rented accommodation from 1982 till 1994 at the
rate of Rs.1600/- per month. Instead of making that award, the National
Commission directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum
on the amount that had been deposited by the respondent form time to time from
1979 onwards till a new plot could be
allotted to him and possession thereof could be delivered. Given the facts, we see no
justification in interfering with that
direction and, consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal and the vacation of the stay order, that direction
must now be fully complied with.
The appeal is
dismissed with costs”.
Decision of the two Judges Bench decision in
the case of GDA vs. Union of India -
2000 (6) SCC 113 was referred to in the
case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Dhanesh Chand Goel (Special Leave
to Appeal (Civil) No.11315/2000, decided on 12.1.2001 - arising from the order
of the MRTP Commission dated 22.2.2000)
where a three Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court held that award of 18% interest per annum
could also be given on equitable grounds, where the facts were that
GDA started a scheme for allotment of houses in Govindpuram
Housing Scheme (Code 538). Shri Dhanesh Chand Goel applied for an allotment
of LIG (double storey) Ashray Ground in that scheme. He paid Rs.11,010/- towards registration amount on
31.10.1988. GDA, vide letter dated 29th March, 1989, conveyed reservation of one LIG
double storey at the estimated
cost of Rs.1,10,000/-. Shri Goel paid the balance amount on
various
dates i.e. on 25.5.1989
(Rs.11,000/-); 27.10.1989 (Rs.22,000/-);
24.4.1990 (Rs.22,000/); 15.10.1999 (Rs. 22,000/-) and 26.4.1991 (Rs.22,000/-). Shri Goel was intimated on 16th November, 1993 that he has been allotted House
No.F/181. This was as per the draw
held on 20th October, 1993.
He was also informed about the
increase in the cost of the house from 1,10,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/- vide letter
dated 6th March, 1996 of GDA.
Shri Goel did not make the payment and as such possession of the house was not given to him. Shri Goel
complained that GDA was indulging in the restrictive trade practices in so far
as additional demand has been imposed on him by manipulating the conditions of
delivery of the house. On notice being
issued, GDA took up the stand that there was some dispute in regard to the
aforesaid scheme and the Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court stayed the proceedings in the case of Satya Prakash
& Ors. Orders of the High Court of
Allahabad is dated 24th April, 1991. This case in the High Court of Allahabad was dismissed and
special leave petition in the Supreme
Court also met the same fate. GDA then
says that ‘F’ block was then allotted to Shanti Suraksha Bal and as such he
could not be given possession of the allotted house. He was told so on 24.2.1996.
He was asked to give option for allotment in some other scheme and at
different place. Shri Goel did not
exercise option nor make the payment as determined. The allegation of Shri Goel that GDA was indulging in the
restrictive trade practices was denied.
MRTP Commission strongly commented on the conduct of the GDA. It
was noted that the stay granted by the Allahabad High Court remained
operational till 16.3.1993 and even Special Leave petition in the supreme Court was dismissed on
12.4.1996. The whole of the ‘F’ Block
in which Goel was allotted house No. F-181
came to be allotted to the Shanti Suraksha Bal. Not only Goel was deprived of the allotted
house but he was also slapped
with additional cost for
allotment of flat in a different scheme and at a different place, for which Goel had never given an option.
MRTP Commission held that by not handing over the house to
Shri Goel, as he was entitled to, he
has suffered a pecuniary loss not only in terms of payment made but also in terms of return
which he could have been earned on the amount deposited by him with GDA. MRTP
Commission directed the GDA to refund the amount of
Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum to Mr. Goel from the dates of
payments of instalments till the dates of refund of the total amount in question. Shri Goel was also awarded a
sum of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and litigation costs. As regards the claim of Shri Goel for rent
which he paid, MRTP Commission said that costs awarded covers the same. Petition of Shri Goel was thus allowed. The Supreme court observed as under:
“The judgement in Ghaziabad
Development Authority vs. Union of India (2000(6) S.C.C. 113) only
opines that interest on equitable grounds can be awarded in
appropriate cases. Given the facts
recorded in the order under challenge, the rate of eighteen per cent per annum
is an award at a reasonable rate.
The special leave petition
is dismissed”.
From the decisions in the cases of Dhanesh
Chand Goel and Rajnish Chander Sharda which had been affirmed by three Judges
Bench of the Supreme Court it can be
concluded that award of interest @ 18%
per annum on the amount deposited by an allottee where there is delay in
handing over the possession is reasonable and could be awarded on equitable
grounds.
It is necessary here to meet the point raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioners drawing our attention to certain judgements
of the Supreme Court. In Smt. Kaushnuma
Begum & Others Vs. National Insurance Co. - 2000 (1) SCALE page 1 rate
of interest has been awarded at
9%. It is distinguishable from the
bunch cases before us in the sense that the cited case relates
to insurance Company where, what the
person has deposited is a premium i.e.only a small portion of the amount covered as also the Government’s lien on those funds to be borrowed at a lower rate of interest where as in the
instant cases money is that of
individuals deposited by them from their own savings or from borrowings. Had they
kept their money elsewhere, returns by
way of
compound interest would have
been much higher. What they ask is interest on the money kept by the Urban Development Authorities. To this extent the two sets are distinguishable. Be that as it may, our hands get further
strengthened by the most recent
judgement of Supreme Court in which
they upheld grant of interest @ 18%
even in a case involving an Insurance
Company as a party i.e. M/s. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company
2001 (2) CPR 97 (SC).
There are stringent conditions while allotting a
plot. It is not disputed that an affidavit is to be filed that the allottee has no other residential plot or house either in
his/her name or in the name
of his/her spouse or minor
children. A person who
applies for allotment of plot is
stuck. He has no other place to go and
has to wait for
years for allotment of the plot so that he
can build a house for his
residence. Pschye of an
individual is always to move
from rental accommodation to his own
house. Government policy also favours
house ownership which has resulted
in coming into being of building
societies and also various Authorities
constituted like HUDA. When
an allottee gives an application that he needs a plot of
land to build a house for his residence he is not guided by any
commercial considerations. In most cases his income would be
stationary while inflation rises over
the years. Award of interest is to enable him to buy a plot elsewhere if a situation arises where he is to be
deprived of the plot he applied for. A consumer is in axiomatic position inasmuch as he has to wait
for allotment of plot and he cannot acquire
any other plot of land on account of onerous conditions that he should not possess any other property at the
time of allotment. Award of interest
at a particular rate should be such as to compensate the allottee who is
deprived of the land and has to go elsewhere in the same or nearby area to buy a plot of land of the same measurement.
In
fact the allottee is in a catch-22 situation.
He has deposited his savings
with HUDA to buy a plot. He has
legitimate expectations that a plot of land will be allotted to him within a reasonable period for him to
build his own house for his family. He
cannot go elsewhere since his money is
blocked with HUDA. It would be too much
to expect that an allottee can go for
another piece of land elsewhere or
buy house as he would have
no extra money. Further by passage of time prices have rocketed. We take judicial notice of the escalation
not only in the cost of land but also in cost of
construction. We do not think if the allottee has not
specifically pleaded rise in cost of construction or cost
of land, he
is not entitled to damages on that account. A consumer who comes before a Consumer Forum is not well versed in the rule of pleadings as
given in the Code of Civil
Procedure when in fact the Act itself provides that
provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure would not apply to the
proceedings before the Consumer
Forum. A Consumer Forum is to take a pragmatic view of the whole
situation guided as it is by rules of natural justice only
in the matters. When the hope and expectations of an allottee are violated there is a legal
injury or loss suffered by him. We may refer to Black’s Law Dictionary to
understand what the expressions ‘loss’ and ‘injury’ would mean. Injury
is ‘any wrong or damage done to another, either in his
person, rights, reputation or property;
the invasion of any legally protected
interest of another’.
‘Loss’: is generic and relative term. It signifies the act of losing or the
thing lost; it is
not a word of limited,
hard and fast
meaning and has
been held synonymous with or
equivalent to, ‘damage’, ‘damages’, ‘deprivation’, ‘detriment’, ‘injury’ and ‘privation.
Further
when clause (i) of sub section (1) of
Section 14 empowers the consumer fora to provide for adequate cost to parties,
it is not necessarily confined to litigation cost only.
HUDA,
GDA and other Urban Development Authorities, each one being an Authority
constituted under the law and being an extended arm, of the State government a consumer has full faith that when he has applied for allotment of
plot to build his house and the Authority agreed to do so, he will be able to
get the plot fully developed within a reasonable period. He has no choice but to wait for a fully
developed plot/flat be allotted to him
for him to start construction. He is
not in a bargaining position. He has
to apply for allotment of plot/flat on
dotted lines as required by HUDA/GDA.
An allottee is not buying plot/flat
for any speculative purpose. It
is for him to build a house for residence
of himself and his family. It is a well known fact that construction cost increases
over the time. Why should
allottee suffer for inaction on the part of HUDA and others in not developing a plot within a reasonable
time after having received the amount
as per its own requirement? Allottee
has therefore to be compensated. Why
HUDA is using his money and allottee is
also deprived of earning interest on that?
Rate of interest for delayed
allotment of handing over possession of the plot of land is to be
reasonable so as to properly compensate
the allottee. Considering the decisions
rendered by the Supreme court in the cases referred to above, we have already taken the view in the case of Punjab Urban Planning &
Development Authority vs. Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon (First Appeal No.157 of
1999) decided on 1.8.2001 that element of interest @ 18% per annum would take into account
not only loss of interest but escalation in the cost of construction. There was
certainly deficiency in service in
depriving the complainant of the
land for all these years with the result that the complainant could not construct her house
for her own residence and meanwhile
cost of construction escalated.
We are thus of the opinion that
in the circumstances of the cases
before us award of interest @ 18% per annum is quite reasonable and equitable.
A
point was also made by the learned counsel for GDA, Mr. Kulshreshtha that for grant of interest to the allottees in
Govindpuram Scheme, the period of 24.4.1991 to 16.12.93 be exempted as there
was stay granted by the High Court for taking up any new construction. On the other hand, it was argued by the
learned counsel for the respondents that stay
granted by the High Court was restrictive i.e. stay was to be operative only on taking up new construction, hence no blank exemption from payment as prayed by the petitioner
be granted. We have examined this point at some length in the case of
GDA Vs. Engineers India Ltd. ( Original Petition No. 34/96)) wherein we
had held that it is true that stay was
only on new constructions but the plea taken
by GDA also cannot be brushed aside
in the sense that, if the area covered by the stay order comprised of
areas for common facilities like roads, sewerage line, water
pipelines, electric poles etc., area
could not be handed over as it could
not be said to be developed. There is some merit in the argument. If we were to send the cases back to the District forum, it can only start fresh set of litigation which
in our view must end and consumer should
finally get some relief. Hence,
we are inclined to agree with the
prayer made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the period be exempted en-block for purposes of calculation of interest to
be given to the allottees.
We
are of view that award of interest @
18% per annum is quite equitable as it will take into consideration the
escalation of cost of construction as
well.
If
the stories of woes of the common man
are to be scripted by the one who shouts from the house
top of his love for the common
man, then in the instant case the only factor begging
question is the truth.
Contradiction is perhaps
inherent in the system like
this. This may be an window of
opportunity to introduce an element of propriety on the part of Urban
Development Authorities while dealing
with common man.
Subject
to the modification that interest @
18% per annum would be allowable after two years from the date of respective
deposits of the amounts, we uphold
the orders of the State
Commission and dismiss these revision petitions. We also like to make it
clear that for calculating the period of interest in the case of allottees in Govindpuram Scheme of GDA, interest
shall not be payable for the period from 24.4.91 to 16.12.93 i.e. the period of stay granted by Allahabad High Court and as
indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of
the cases.
…………………………….J.
(D.P.
WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
……………………………..J.
(C.L.
CHAUDHRY)
MEMBER
……………………………..J.
(J.K.
MEHRA)
MEMBER
……………………………….
(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO)
MEMBER
……………………………..
(
B.K. TAIMNI)
MEMBER