w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Kanpur Development Authority Through It Vice-Chairman Motijheel, Kanpur U.P. v/s Sudarshan Devi


Company & Directors' Information:- DEVI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16000AP2011PTC076133

Company & Directors' Information:- SUDARSHAN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC058770

Company & Directors' Information:- J J DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300WB1996PTC081491

Company & Directors' Information:- L N DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102ML1986PLC002590

Company & Directors' Information:- K K R DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1981PTC034258

Company & Directors' Information:- SUDARSHAN CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320PN2013PTC147816

    Revision Petition No. 1365 of 2015

    Decided On, 09 November 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Raj Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral:The respondent/complainant was allotted house No. C-120, Gulmohar Vihr, W Block, Juhu, Kanpur in a draw of lots held on 28.03.1985 and allotment letter dated 09.04.1985 was issued to her. In the allotment letter the estimated cost of the house was given as Rs.1.15 lakhs. However, the actual cost of the house came to Rs.148443.52 and was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 11.01.1991. The balance sale consideration could be paid in instalments. The complainant did not pay the instalments in time. The possession of the house was given to the complainant but the conveyance deed in her favour was not executed. The non-execution of the sale deed was on account of the complainant having not paid the demand of Rs.199946/- raised by the petitioner Authority. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking execution of the conveyance deed in her favour. She also wanted that the petitioner Authority should not demand more than Rs. 1,15,000/- from him towards the cost of the house.2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Authority which, inter alia, stated in its written version that the complainant had not paid the demand raised by it. A reference in this regard was made to various letters alleged to have been sent by the petitioner Authority to the complainant on different dates.3. The District Forum vide its order dated 14.10.2009 directed as under:-“Claim is allowed. After OTS fees were deposited on 04.03.1999, the entire remaining amount demanded by the defendant is cancelled. The defendant is ordered that they must calculate the remaining amount in the head of the house from the date of deposing fees in OTS within 30 days of the - judgment, thereafter the defendant must execute registry within 30 days in favor of the plaintiff. They must give Rs. 1000/- in suit cost, which also must be adjusted in remaining amount. In case of default, the defendant would pay 10% simple interest per annum from the date, of depositing until registry on the entire amount deposited by the plaintiff.”4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner Authority approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed the petitioner Authority is before this Commission.5. Admittedly, the possession of the house was delivered to the complainant even before the Consumer Complaint was instituted. It is also an admitted position that the conveyance deed of the house has not been executed so far in favour of the complainant.6. The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the complainant is liable to pay only Rs. 1,15,000/- or she is liable to pay Rs. 1,04,443.52/- towards the cost of the house. As noted earlier the cost given in the allotment letter issued to the complainant was only an estimated cost. In the houses constructed by agencies such as the petitioner Kanpur Development Authority the final cost of the house may work out to be more than the estimated cost conveyed to the allottee at the time of initial allotment. Therefore, the complainant was required to pay Rs.1,04,443.52/-, towards the cost of the house allotted to him. If the said cost was not acceptable to him he could have declined to take possession of the house.7. Vide order dated 17.07.2020 and 07.09.2020 this Commission directed as under:-“The petitioner is directed to file a detailed Chart, disclosing therein (i) the date on which each installment was payable by the complainant, (ii) the date on which the said installment was actually paid in case, the installment stands paid and (iii) the interest payable on that particular installment alongwith the rate of interest.The above referred Chart will be filed within four weeks. Re-notify for final hearing on 07.9.2020.”“The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit in terms of the order dated 17.07.2020. The Ld. counsel for the respondent wants to respond to the said affidavit. He can respond to the additional affidavit within four weeks from today. List this petition for final hearing on 03.11.2020.”8. A perusal of the calculations filed by the petitioner Authority would show that the complainant made a payment of Rs. 25,000/- on 06.05.1985 towards the first instalment and there was no delay in making this payment. The second, third and fourth instalments were paid 21.08.1985, 08.06.1988 and 21.04.1992 with a delay of 01 month 02 days, 32 months 23 days and 89 months 06 days respectively. The complainant also deposited Rs. 400.70/- on 21.08.1985 while depositing the payment of Rs. 25,000/-. After adjusting the amount paid by the complainant the petitioner Authority has claimed an amount of Rs.3,02,306.52 which according to the Authority is due from the complainant on 30.09.2020 and which comprises Rs. 39,401.39 towards the outstanding principal amount, Rs.2,60,348.13 towards interest, Rs. 2057/- towards free-hold charges and Rs. 500/- towards miscellaneous expenses.9. The complainant having delayed the payment of second, third and fourth instalments, there is no reason why he should not pay suitable interest on the afore-said instalments for the period the payment was delayed. The petitioner Authority has claimed interest @ 21% p.a. However, the rate at which interest was payable by the allottee is not given in the allotment letter issued to the complainant. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Authority submits that the interest has been computed as per the rates specified in the Office Orders issued by the petitioner Authority from time to time. However, no where it is stipulated in the allotment letter that in case of delay in payment of instalments interest at the rates specified by the petitioner Authority through the Office Orders will be payable by the allottee. Moreover, no Office Order prescribing the rate at which interest was payable in case of delayed payment of the instalments was filed before the District Forum. In these circumstances I am of the view that the Petitioner Authority is entitled to charge a reasonable interest from the complainant but cannot charge interest @ 21% p.a.10. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the interest rates prevalent at the relevant time, it is directed that interest from the complainant shall be charged @ 12% p.a. up to the date of institution of the consumer complaint and @ 10% after the date on which the consumer complaint was instituted.11. The revision petition is, therefore, dispose of with the following directions:-(i) A revised demand letter shall be issued to the co

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

mplainant within 8 weeks computing interest on the delayed instalments, @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. the due date of each instalment till the date on which the consumer complaint was instituted. Thereafter interest on the said instalments shall be calculated @ 10% p.a. It is made clear that only simple interest on the outstanding principal amount, and not compound interest shall be charged from the complainant.(ii) The complainant shall make payment in terms of the demand letter as per direction (i) above within six weeks of receiving the demand.(iii) If the complainant makes payment in terms of this order the conveyance deed in her favour shall be executed by the petitioner Authority within six weeks thereafter.(iv) No orders as to costs.
O R