IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3727 OF 2001

Ghaziabad Development Authority        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Urmila       ...Respondent(s)

With Civil Appeal No.6955 of 2004

O  R  D  E  R

Civil Appeal No.3727 of 2004:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (for short,

“the  District  Forum”)  by  its  order  dated  20th January,  1999,  partly  allowed  the

complaint  filed  by  respondent-Urmila  and  directed  Ghaziabad  Development

Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”) to remove the defects in the

house allotted to the respondent with the stipulation that if the needful is not done,

then decision will  be taken in the execution proceedings for award of the amount

spent by  the complainant  on removal  of  the defects.   The District  Forum further

directed the Authority to pay interest to the respondent at the rate of 15 per cent per

annum for  the period from 1st April,  1995 to 6th September,  1996 on the  amount

deposited by her up to 31st March, 1995 and Rupees four thousand towards mental

agony and cost  of  litigation as,  in  its  opinion,  there was  delay on the  part  of  the

Authority in delivering possession of the house to the respondent.  The said order was

confirmed in appeal by

...2/-

- 2 -  

the  State  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  U.P.(for  short,  “the  State

Commission”)  and  when  the  matter   was  taken  in  revision  before  the  National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, “the National  Commission”),

the same has been dismissed.  Hence, this appeal by special leave.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Authority submitted

that the District Forum was not justified in directing it to remove the defects in the

house allotted to the respondent on the basis of report dated 15th September, 1996

prepared by the Engineer appointed by her because she had taken possession of the

house  without  making any grievance regarding  the so-called  defects.  In  our view,

there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel and the direction given by

the District Forum does not call for interference because the Authority did not adduce

any evidence  before  the  District  Forum to controvert  the  report  produced by  the

respondent.  If the house was free from defects on the date of delivery of possession

and the Authority thought that report dated 15th September, 1996 does not reflect the

true status of the house, then it could have, on receipt of the notice of the complaint,

deputed its  own  engineer  for  inspection  and  submitted  report  before  the  District

Forum to  convince  it  that  the  grievance  made  by  the  respondent  was  untenable.

However, the fact of the matter is that no such report was produced by the Authority.

Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the direction given by the

District Forum, which was confirmed by the State Commission as well as the National

Commission.   

Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the District Forum

was not justified in awarding interest on the amount deposited by the respondent up

to 31st March, 1995 because there was no delay in the delivery of possession of the

house. Learned counsel pointed out that in terms of letter dated 3rd February, 1993

the respondent was required to

...3/-

- 3 -  

pay  balance  of  the  estimated  cost  by  30th July,  1995  but  she  did  not  pay  the

instalments on due dates and the last one was paid after more than one year and four

months  of  the  delivery  of  possession.   Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  fairly

admitted that his client did not pay instalments of the balance estimated cost on due

dates.   In  this  view  of  the  matter,  the  Authority  cannot  be  blamed  for  delay  in

handing  over  possession  of  the  house  to the respondent.   Even otherwise,  we  are

satisfied that the finding recorded by the District Forum on the issue of delay in the

delivery of possession is based on total misreading of letter dated 3rd February, 1993

and the pleadings of the parties.  The District Forum completely ignored the fact that

the respondent had not paid even a single instalment on due date and even as on the

date of handing over possession, substantial amount was due from her.  A reading of

letter  dated  3rd February,  1993  shows  that  the  respondent  was  required  to  pay

instalments of the balance estimated costs between 30th January, 1993 and 30th July,

1995. It was mentioned in that letter that the expected date of delivery of possession of

the  house  would  be  during  the  year  1995,  which  would  necessarily  mean  after

payment of the instalments by 30th July, 1995. It was further mentioned in the letter

that  if  the  house  is  made  ready  before  one  or  more  instalments  are  due,  then

possession of the same would be made over to the complainant only upon payment of

entire balance instalments in one lump sum. In paragraph (4) of the complaint the

respondent has given a table of the instalments paid by her.  A reading thereof makes

it clear that not a single instalment was paid within time.  Till  the year 1994, the

respondent paid only a sum of Rupees one lakh.  No payment was made in the year

1995 and substantial amount was paid between the years 1996 and 1998.  The last

instalment was paid on 16th January, 1998.  From these facts it is evident that there

were  laches on the part of the respondent

...4/-

- 4 -  

in payment of the instalments.  In this view of the matter, it must be held that District

Forum was not justified in awarding interest upon the amount  deposited till  31st

March,  1995 and  the  sum of  Rupees  four  thousand  by  way  of  compensation  for

mental agony as also cost of litigation.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order passed

by the District Forum awarding interest from 1st April, 1995 till 6th September, 1996

and sum of Rupees four thousand by way of compensation and the orders of the State

Commission and the National Commission confirming the same are set aside.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6955 OF 2004:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By  the  impugned  order,  the  National  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal

Commission (for short “the National Commission”), has remanded the matter to the

District  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Forum,  Ghaziabad  (for  short,  “the  District

Forum”) for calculation of the amount payable to the respondent as also the amount

due to the appellant-Authority.  The District Forum, on remand, is directed to pass a

fresh order, as directed by the National Commission, after taking into consideration

the order passed by us today in Civil Appeal No. 3727 of 2001.

With this direction, the civil appeal is disposed of.  

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, January 22, 2009.