1. THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.
337/98.
2. THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is an employee of State Bank of India. He applied for an M.I.G. House No. 21,
Sitapur Road from Lucknow Development Authority through the State Bank of India Staff Association. THE cost of that house was deposited by
the complainant on 28.12.1994 but Lucknow Development Authority has not handed over the possession of the house after completing the same.
THE opposite party in the written version has alleged that on account of opposition by the villagers, the construction work could not be completed.
This information was sent to the Bank Staff Association and it was indicated that the house shall be completed soon and the possession will also be
delivered.
The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, held that the above house has been allotted to the complainant without solving
the dispute. The allotment of semi-finished house after collecting the entire amount from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the
part of the Development Authority for not giving the possession of the house complete in all respects. The learned District Forum directed that the
house should be completed within six months and the possession of the house be delivered after completing the formalities. It allowed interest at
the rate of 18% per annum from 1.1.1996 to be paid within six months. It was also ordered if the possession of the house is not delivered then the
complainant will also be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and the interest shall be paid at the rate of 24% per annum.
Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed
by the District Forum.
3. WE have heard the learned Counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority Mr. Pramod Kumar without issuing notice to the respondent for
the reason that it will put extra burden on the respondent. The question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant have been settled by various
decisions of this Commission, the Hon''ble National Commission and the Hon''ble Supreme. The issuing of notice would have added to the cost of
the opposite party and the judgment would be the same even if the complainant is heard. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that an
agreement was entered with the Bank Staff Association that the 100 houses will be allotted to the Bank staff. Thereafter, by another agreement,
these 100 houses were converted into 30 houses. It was also agreed that the rest of the amount shall be refunded. A perusal of the file will go to
show that the houses were to be given by the Lucknow Development Authority to the State Bank of India Staff Association for its employees. The
record goes to show that the Lucknow Development Authority wrote a letter dated 18.12.1992 to the Secretary, State Bank of India Housing
Society that the permission to allot 100 houses has been granted. The cost of one house comes to Rs. 3,05,000/-. The cost of these houses was
demanded by letter dated 18.12.1992 by the State Bank of India Staff Association to indicate the exact costing so that the amount may be
deposited with the Lucknow Development Authority. Thereafter, by letter dated 19.6.1993, the State Bank of India Staff Association informed the
Cost Accountant and Economic Planner of Lucknow Development Authority that they have deposited the allotment money of 25 houses of Rs.
2,50,000/- by cheque dated 29.3.1993. It has also mentioned that the amount deposited by them earlier be adjusted proportionately from the rest
of the houses. Thereafter, the Lucknow Development Authority by its letter dated 23.8.1993 sent the schedule of payment. Now it is an admitted
fact that the entire payment has been made but the house have not been completed and the possession have not been delivered to the
complainants.
A perusal of the file will go to show that the amounts were deposited in December, 1994 but the possession has not been delivered even after a
lapse of 5 years. Therefore, there is a deficiency on the part of the Lucknow Development Authority for which it has to compensate to the
complainant. The learned District Forum has directed for completion of the house and for delivery of the possession to the complainants failing
which 18% per annum interest has been awarded against them besides some other relief as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. When the
damages have already been granted in the form of interest at the rate of 18% per annum, it was not necessary to grant the compensation of Rs.
500/- per month. The interest at the rate of 24% per annum cannot be granted in view of the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case
of Surendra Kaur v. Government of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases 592, in which it has been held that the interest shall be
payable at the rate of 18% per annum. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of Lata Construction Company & Ors. v. Dr. Ramesh Chandra
Ramaniklal Shah & Ors., III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 77=(1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 534 has also upheld the interest of 18% in
case of builder. The Hon''ble National Commission has also awarded interest at the rate of 18% in the case of George Thomas & Ors. v.
Ghaziabad Development Authority, I (1999) CPJ 18 (NC).
4. THUS, we find that the order of the learned District Forum requires some modification. The appellant shall not be liable to pay Rs. 500/- per
month as a compensation and interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The appellant shall only pay interest from 1.1.1996 at the rate of 18% per
annum till the date of possession of the house and Rs. 1,000/- as cost which have been awarded by the learned District Forum. Order
The appeal is allowed in part to the extent that the appellant will pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.1.1996 till the date of delivery of
possession of the house alongwith the cost of Rs. 1,000/- as awarded by the learned District Forum. The rest of the order of learned District
Forum is set aside. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be
made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed in part.