ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHIV MOHAN KOOL
LAWS(UPCDRC)-2007-3-3
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 21,2007

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
VERSUS
Shiv Mohan Kool Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The respondent/complainant Shiv Mohan applied for a flat in the year 1992 under Kalindipuram Scheme, Allahabad and deposited with Allahabad Development Authority a sum of Rs. 1,11,000 in March 92. The Kalindipuram Project some how could not get through, as a consequence the complainant was offered an alternative flat in another scheme but it was not acceptable to him. He however, requested the A.D.A. for allotment of a plot measuring 160 sq. metres. The A.D.A. accepted the offer and allotted plot No. G1/264 in Kalindipuram scheme but the complainant again deviated from his offer and requested for refund of the money he had deposited along with interest.
(2.) THE District Forum on having heard both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the ADA to refund the complainant's amount of Rs. 1,11,000 along with interest @18% p.a. There was also a stipulated clause that if the payment was not made within one month the rate of interest would be raised to Rs. 20% p.a. Besides this Rs. 10,000 as damages and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation were also awarded.
(3.) AS is apparent, the parties are on a small issue of rate of interest only. Whereas the appellant's Counsel has termed the awarded rate of interest to be excessive, the respondent's Counsel has supported it on the basis of his argument comprising multiple reasonsthe first of them being that the complainant was kept on being harassed for as long as eight years. Secondly, the complainant had borrowed the money he deposited with the ADA from the State Bank of India; thirdly the ADA played tricky ways by offering him a disputed flat and lastly that now he being close to retirement he would not be able to get a flat or plot at the value of the property prevalent in the year 1992. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the following two citations wherein Hon'ble NCDRC reduced the rate of interest as awardedby the District Forum: 1. J.L. Sethi v. Senior Citizen Home Complex Walfare Society, 2006 3 CPJ 356 (NC). 2. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another v. Pawan Kumar Gupta, 2006 3 CPJ 277 (NC).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.