Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 30 (UTT)

M. D. D. A. v. Amitabh Kukreti

2004-04-09

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2004
JUDGMENT This is an appeal by the M.D.DA against the order dated 11.02.1'994 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun whereby the appellant was directed to pay simple interest to the complainant @15% p.a. on the deposits made by the complainant. 2. The question is very short. The complainant has made two deposits of Rs.25.0001- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) &. Rs.50.000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for allotment of a house in 1990-91. The house could not be constructed. The scheme was abandoned. The complainant applied for the refund of his amount. There was dispute of interest therefore the complainant filed the complaint before the Learned Forum. 3. The appellant argued that according to the brochure, the interest shall be only @5% and no further. Since the Forum has awarded interest @15%, the appeal was filed. 4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The Learned Counsel for the M.D.DA, Sh. Kanvaljeet Singh vigorously argued that nobody can claim interest beyond the rate agreed between the parties. We agree with his argument but the question is not of mere agreement but the question is also of the compensation. A house which can be purchased in 1990 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (for example) shall be purchased in 1992 for Rs. 4,00,000/-. The price is doubled alter every 2 or 3 years, therefore the complainant who was in expectation of a house on cheap price, had to pay very high price, if he had to purchase a house after 2 or 3 years. The interest therefore on unpaid amount is to be awarded to compensate as well. The M.D.D.A cannot say that the scheme of brochure is bringing on the complainant as well because it itself has not complied with the brochure and has not given the house to the complainant. It has also been deficient in its service and for this deficiency in service also interest is allowed. 5. There are a number of rulings by the National Commission on housing matters wherein it is held that interest should be @18%. We are supported by the ruling reported in 2001 (2) C.P.C. 134, Haryana. Urban Development Authority Vs. Darsh Kumar. In the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Vs. Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon. 5. There are a number of rulings by the National Commission on housing matters wherein it is held that interest should be @18%. We are supported by the ruling reported in 2001 (2) C.P.C. 134, Haryana. Urban Development Authority Vs. Darsh Kumar. In the case of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Vs. Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon. decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 01.08.2001 in First Appeal No. 157 of 1999, the Hon'ble National Commission has held: "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 and Development Authority Vs. Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon First Appeal No.157 of 1999) decided on 01.08.2001 and reported at 2002 C. T.J. 381 (C.P.) that element of interest at the rate of 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 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 at the rate of 18% per annum is quite reasonable and equitable." In the ruling reported in I (2004) CPJ 84 (NC), H.P. Roy Vs. Government of Bihar and Ors., the National Commission has awarded interest @18%. 6. This Commission has also awarded interest @18% in the ruling reported in I (2004) CPJ 77, M.D.D.A. Vs. Neeraj Jain. In this ruling also the rules of the brochure were argued and it was held that when the M.D.D.A. itself charges interest @18%, it should not be shy of refunding the amount @18% on delayed refund. 7. It is enough that the Learned Forum has allowed interest @15%. There is no appeal to enhance it. 8. However, it was concealed by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that the entire amount has been paid including the interest in terms of the Forum's order and there is nothing due against the M.D.DA The appeal therefore becomes instructions. ORDER The order of the Learned Forum is hereby upheld. The appeal is dismissed as in fructuous. Since the order of the Forum has been complied with, no.1 is survives between the .parties. The complainant stands satisfied. ORDER The order of the Learned Forum is hereby upheld. The appeal is dismissed as in fructuous. Since the order of the Forum has been complied with, no.1 is survives between the .parties. The complainant stands satisfied. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.