Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Sanchar Vihar
Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad
[1996] INSC 743 (10 May
1996)
Kuldip
Singh (J) Kuldip Singh (J) Kurdukar S.P. (J) P. Kurdukar,J.
CITATION:
1996 AIR 2021 1996 SCALE (4)497
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NO-7439 OF 1995 Sanchar Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad V. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad
O R D
E R S.
These
two appeals can be disposed of by this common order since they arise out of a
judgment and order dated May 19, 1995 in Original Petition No.345 of 1993 passeed
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short
'National Commission').
2.
Civil Appeal No.7199 of 1995 is filed by Ghaziabad Development Authority
through its Vice Chairman whereas Civil Appeal No.7439 of 1995 is filed by Sanchar
Vihar Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant').
3. The
complainant is the society company, comprising of about 200 persons as its
members. They have been allotted the plots under the scheme called G.D.A.'s Govind
Puram Plots/Housing, Code: 537, 538 and 539. It is averred in the petition by
the complainant that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has violated the terms
and conditions inasmuch as failed to put them in possession of the plots within
the stipulated period as prescribed in rule 15 of the brochure issued by the
Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority').
It is further complained that the Authority has charged interest in contravention
and in violation of clause 3.50 of the brochure as these plots have been resistered
under the Self Financing Scheme. It is further averred that the Authority has
also charged penal interest for delayed payment of the instalments. The
complainant, therefore, prayed that the Authority be directed to give
possession of the duly developed plots within three months from the date of
order of this Commission; to refund the amount of Rs. 26,70,246.00 recovered by
way of interest and penal interest on the instalments: and pay interest @ 18%
per annum on the amount deposited with the Authority w.e.f. April 19,1992.
4. The
Authority filed its reply to the aforesaid complaint and stated that the plots
have been allotted to the members of the complainant on 16.3.1994. and the
letters of allotment have been sent to them. As regards charging of interest,
it is stated that clause 3.50 of brochure relates to flats and houses built
under Self Financing Scheme and the said clause does not apply to the plots.
The Authority relied upon column 9 in Annexure-1 of the brochure wherein it is
provided that balance amount payable in six half yearly instalments with 15%
interest. The Authority, therefore, prayed that the claim of the claimant is
not sustainable and the complaint be dismissed.
5. The
National Commission on perusal of the materials on record held that the
complainant has made out no ground for awarding any interest or damages. The
National Commission, however, opined that the Authority which has collected the
interest amounting to Rs. 25,37,669/- as indicated in the complaint had no
authority to charge the same in view of clause 3.50 which relates to Self
Financing Scheme. The National Commission further held that the Authority is
within its rights to charge penal interest for the delay in payment of instalments.
Consistent with these findings the National Commission by its order dated May 19, 1995 directed the Authority to refund
the amount of interest charged @ 14% on the basis of column 9 of table 1 to the
complainant. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in both
these appeals.
6.
Civil Appeal No,7199 of 1995 is fiIed by the Authority challenging the order of
the National Commission to the extent it directs the Authority to return the
amount of Rs.25,37,669.00 to the complainant. The complainant being partly
aggrieved by the impugned order of Commission filed Civil Appeal No.7439 of
1995 whereby it permitted the Authority to charge penal interest on delayed
payment of instalments.
7.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The
entire controversy in both these appeals centers around the interpretation of
clause 3.50 and column 9 of table 1, Annexure 1 of the brochure issLed by the
Authority. It is not disputed before us that the claimants' claim arise under
the brochure and clause 3.50 and table 1 are part of the said brochure. The
brochure is at Annexure-1 in Civil Appeal No. 7439 of 1995 filed by the
complainant. Title of the brochure is Govind Puram Plots-be directed to give
possession of the duly developed plots within three months from the date of
order of this Commission; to refund the amount of Rs.26~70?246.00 recovered My
way of interest and penal interest on the instalments; and pay interest 3 18%
per annum on the amqunt deposited with the Authority w.e.f. April 19, 1992.
4. The
Authority filed its reply to the aforesaid complaint and stated that the plots
have been allotted to the members of the complainant on 16.3.1994 and the
letters of allotment have been sent to them. As regardg charging of interest,
it it stated that clause 3.50 of brochure relates to flats and houses built
under Self Financing Schemes and the said clause does not apply to the plots.
The Authority relied upon column 9 in Annexure-l of the brochure wherein it is
provided that balance amount payable in six half yearly instalments with 15%
interest. The Authority, therefore, prayed that the claim of the claimant is
not sustainable and the complaint be dismissed.
5. The
National Commission on perusal of the materials on record held that the
complainant has made out no ground for awarding any interest or damages. The
National Commission, however, opined that the Authority which has collected the
interest amounting to Rs. 25,37,669/- as indicated in the complaint had no
authority to charge the same in view of clause 3.50 which relates to Self
Financing Scheme. The National Commission further held that the Authority is
within its rights to charge penal interest for the delay in payment of instalments.
Consistent with these findings the National Commission by its order dated May 19, 1995 directed the Authority to refund
the amount of interest charged @ 14% on the basis of column 9 of table 1 to the
complainant. it is this order which is the subject matter of challege in both
these appeals.
6.
Civil Appeal No. 7199 of 1995 is filed by the Authority challenging the order
of the National Commission to the extent it directs the Authority to return the
amount of Rs.25,37,669.00 to the complainant. The complainant being partly
aggrieved by the impugned order of Commission filed Civil Appeal No. 7439 of
1995 whereby it permitted the Authority to charge penal interest on delayed
payment of instalments.
7.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The
entire controversy in both these appeals centers around the interpretation of
clause 3.50 and column 9 of table 1, Annexure 1 of the brochure issued by the
Authority. It is not disputed before us that the claimants' claim arise under
the brochure and clause 3.50 and table 1 are part of the said brochure. The
brochure is at Annexure-1 in Civil Appeal No.7439 of 1995 filed by the
complainant. Title of the brochure is Govind Puram Plots/Housing, Code 537, 538
and 539. It is issued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
It is
common premise that the said brochure is applicable to the housing scheme of
the complainant. In order to appreciate the rival contention we may reproduce
the relevant clauses of the brochure.
8.
Clause 3.44 deals with the instalments. It reads as under:
Balance
cost of the Plots/Houses is payable if half yearly instalments, details of
which are given in column 9 of table 1. More details will be intimated
afterwards.
Clause
3.50- Interest payable on instalments:
No
interest is payable on instalments under Self Financing Schemes and 15%
interest is payable on instalments under the Purchase Scheme.
9.
Table 1 annexed to the brochure sets out the various details in twelve columns.
The relevant column in table 1 column 9 and it reads as under:
"balance
amount payable in six half yearly instalments with 15% interest".
10.
Mr. O.P. Rana, learned Senior counsel appearing in support of Civil Appeal
filed by the Authority contended that the entire brochure has to be read
together because this was an advertisement to the public at large and in terms
of the brochure applications from the eligible persons were invited for
allotting houses/plots under the said scheme. When the applicants/members of
the complainant applied to the Authority under the present scheme their
applications were processed, scrutinized as peW the brochure and were given the
instalment facility as regards the payment of balance amount in six half yearly
instalments in terms of column 9, table 1 annexed to the said brochure.
Column
9 provides that if the facility of payment of balance amount in six half yearly
instalments is being availed of, then applicants are required to pay interest @
15% per annum on the balance amount of instalments. He urged that the members
of the complainant did avail the facility of payment of balance amount in six
half yearly instalments as per column 9 in table 1 and accordingly paid the
interest at 15% per annum. Mr. O.P. Rana, therefore, urged that it is open to
the complainant now to say that the amount of 26,70,246.00 paid to the
Authority was not payable and the same be refunded.
11.
Mr. Narender Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, however,
strongly relied upon the wording of clause 3.50 of the brochure and urged that
the National Commission has committed no error in issuing direction to the
Authority to refund the amount of Rs.25,37,669/- to the complainant.
12. In
our opinion the National Commission was not justified in dissecting clause 3.50
and column 9 of table 1 of the brochure. The brochure published by the
Authority has to be read together. It is true that clause 3.50 is silent about
the liability of the applicant to pay the interest @ 15% on the balance amount
but that clause in our opinion has to be read with table 1, column 9. This we
say so because table 1 sets cut the details relating to scheme, name and code,
the property category, number of plots, approximate cost of the plots, payment
plan/pay plan, registration amount, reservation amount, balance amount payment
schedule etc.
Since
the complainant and its members have availed the facility of payment of balance
amount in the Self Financing Scheme in six half yearly instalments and
accordingly paid the interest with 15% per annum it would be too late in the
day to say that in the Self Financing Scheme they were not liable to pay
interest on the balance amount as claimed by the Authority. If the members of
the complainant were not agreeable to the payment of interest on the balance
amount 3.50 as prescribed in column 9 of table 1 then they ought to have
objected to the liability to pay the interest provided therein and should have
raised the dispute at the appropriate time. Having acquiesced in the mode of
payment in instalments as per column 9 of table 1 in our opinion it would not
be permissible for the complainant to raise a dispute as regards the payment of
interest thereon. It is thus in our opinion that the finding of the Tribunal,
"We have carefully perused the brochure and find that clause 3.50 makes no
distinction between the houses and plots. In any case rule clearly states that
no interest is payable on instalments under the Self Financing Scheme. Column 9
in the table in Annexure-I cannot override the rule as mentioned in clause
3.50. We are, therefore, of the view that the interest cannot be charged from
those who have applied for the plots under Self Financing Scheme", is an
erroneous interpretation of the brochure and in particular clause 3.50 and
column 9 of table 1. The entire brochure is required to be read as a whole as
it relates to various schemes of housing to the eligible persons. Table 1 which
is part of brochure has to be read in consonance with clause 3.50. It would not
be correct to read clause 3.50 in isolation to column 9 of table 1 and to come
to the conclusion that since no provision as regards the interest is made in
clause 3.50, the Authority is not entitled to charge interest on the balance
amount being paid in instalments. We are, therefore, of the opinion that clause
3.50 is required to be read in conjunction with column 9 of table 1 of the
brochure. With respect we are unable to agree with the finding of the National
Commission on this issue and accordingly the same is unsustainable.
13.
Coming to the appeal filed by the complainant (Civil Appeal No.7439 of 1995) we
are of the opinion that the National Commission has made no mistake in refusing
interest or damages for delayed possession of the plots to the members of the
complainant. During the course of arguments it was brought to our notice that
the lands in question were the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings
and because of the interim orders obtained by the land owners/claimants the
authority was unable to finalize the acquisition proceedings and obtained
possession thereof.
During
the course of hearing, learned counsel for the claimants produced in Court a zerox
copy of the letter dated 19.2.1996 addressed to the individual plot holders. It
is signed by the Joint Secretary, Ghaziabad Vikas Pardhitaran, Ghaziabad. Taken
on record. We have perused the said letter and Mr. Rana, learned Senior
counsel, appearing for the Authority assured the Court that every necessary
steps will be taken by the Authority to hand over the possession of the plots
to the applicants who have been allotted the plots under the present scheme. We
hope the Authority will do the needful in terms of the letter dated 19.2.1996.
14. In
the result the order passed by the National Commission to refund the amount of
interest of Rs.25,27,669/- to the complainant is quashed and set aside and the
Civil Appeal No.7199 of 1995 filed by Ghaziabad Development Authority is
allowed. Civil Appeal No.7439 of 1995 filed by the complainant is dismissed.
The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2