Judgment:
A.P. Chowdhri, President:
1. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent, who was complainant before District Forum-II was issued allotment-cum-demand letter in respect of flat No. 73, Pocket D, Dilshad Garden for Rs. 1,75,800/- on 8.8.91. The admitted case is that the complainant deposited the entire amount and completed the prescribed formalities by 4.10.91. Possession letter was issued on 18.3.92 and possession actually delivered 13 months later on 20.4.93. The case of the complainant was that he visited the site and met Jr. Engineer concerned on the following dates:
19.3.92, 10.4.92, 10.6.92, 29.6.92, 1.10.92, 10.11.92, 15.1.93, 16.2.93, 20.3.93, 20.4.93.
2. Even after taking possession, the complainant wrote five letters from 31.8.92 to 27.12.93 claiming interest for the delay in delivery of possession but he failed to elicit any reply.
3. On a consideration of the material on record. District Forum-II allowed interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount paid by the complainant from 4.10.91 when he had deposited the amount and had complied with the formalities till 20.4.93 when possession was, in fact, delivered besides Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the order, the DDA has preferred this appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the appellant and the respondent who argued in person and have perused the records.
5. The contention of Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the complainant did not visit the site on the dates indicated for the purpose of delivery of possession by the J.E. We are unable to accept this contention. The respondent submits that he had placed on record photocopy of the endorsements made by various J.Es from time to time under their signatures fixing next date when the complainant should come to the site to receive possession. A copy, thereof, was made available to us. The various endorsements under the signatures of different J.Es. have not been disputed. None of these endorsements shows that on the previous date the complainant had not turned up to receive possession. Even otherwise, we think that in these days of souring prices and high rents, the complainant would not like to delay in taking of possession especially when he had already paid the entire cost price. It may also be pointed out that one of the grounds taken by the DDA to show that the complainant could not be given possession earlier was that the contractor responsible for completion of construction had not completed the job. This plea was rightly rejected by the District Forum as it is contradictory to the two other pleas taken in the same context by DDA namely, (a) that the complainant himself did not turn-up on the dates prescribed for the purpose of delivery of possession and, (b) that he was not in a position to shift earlier than 20.4.93 on account of indisposition of some member of his family. We find ourselves in agreement with the D.F. that if the building had not been completed by the contractor, other pleas paled into in the insignificance and deserved to be rejected.
6. The next contention of Mr. Gupta is that admittedly payment had been made and formalities completed only on 4.10.91 and a reason able period should have been given for DDA to issue letter of possession. There is some force in this contention, and, therefore, the direction of District Forum-II to pay interest from 4.10.91 needs to be revised. Allowing about three months time to DDA, which we think in the facts and circumstances of the case to be reasonable, possession letter should have been issued by 4.12.91 instead it was issued on 18.3.92. There was, thus, delay of three months and 14 days.
7. We further find that normally the DDA notifies to the allottees as was done in the present case to take possession within 30 days of the letter of possession. That period expired on 18.4.92. Possession was, in fact, delivered after another 12 months on 20.4.93. No justification for that delay has been brought on record.
8. The District Forum has allowed interest for the initial delay and has proceeded to allow further interest upon interest for the next stage of delay between letter of possession and delivery of possession. Technically speaking the order cannot be held to be illegal because the interest allowed is by way of compensation. Instead of quantifying the amount, the District Forum has described the compensation in terms of interest. To avoid any confusion, however, and in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that it would meet the interest of justice if the complainant is allowed interest @ 15% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 1,75,800/- for a period of 15 months and 14 days besides the costs allowed by the District Forum. We partly allow the appeal in the aforesaid terms and direct the DDA to pay the aforesaid interest by way of compensation to the respondent within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall continue to carry interest at the same rate till date of payment. The parties shall bear their own costs in the appeal. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to both the sides as well as District Forum-II.
Appeal partly allowed.