Civil Appeals Nos. 7676-77 of 1997
1. The respondents applied for allotment of flats under the Fifth Self Financing Scheme under Category 2 and Category 3. Even after they made full payment towards the cost of the flats and also after completion of the formalities required to be completed by them, the appellant did not deliver possession of the flats within a reasonable time. The respondents approached the District Consumer Forum seeking damages for the loss suffered by them on account of inordinate delay caused in delivery of possession of flats. The District Forum, after considering the respective contentions and after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaints of the respondents and directed the appellant to pay interest @ 18% on account of delay caused by it in delivery of possession and a sum of Rs. 2000 was also awarded as cost to each one of the respondents. The appellant filed an appeal before the State Commission challenging the validity and correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission, while affirming the findings recorded by the District Forum, reduced the rate of interest to 15% and in other respects the order of the District Forum was confirmed. The matter did not rest at that. The appellant filed revision before the National Commission challenging the order passed by the State Commission. The National Commission did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission and upheld the order passed by the State Commission. The National Commission further directed the appellant to recover the amount towards payment of costs of Rs. 2000 to each one of the respondents from its officers. Hence these appeals.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order made, directing the appellant to pay interest @ 15% is not at all justified and the rate of interest is not consistent with the amended clause 10 of the brochure issued under the Scheme.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned order.
4. The only controversy raised before us is regarding the rate of interest. As can be seen from the order of the District Forum as well as the State Commission that the award of interest @ 15% is not interest in substance, but, it is to compensate the respondents by way of awarding damages for the loss in terms of money as well as the mental agony and other sufferings they underwent. This position is clear from the order passed by the District Forum as well as by the State Commission. The State Commission in its order, dealing with the award of damages by way of interest, has stated thus:
"It cannot be disputed that if an allottee is not given possession of the flat, he not only suffers monetary loss, but also suffers mental pain and harassment. The person who is responsible for the delay, is therefore, liable to reimburse him for the loss suffered by him and pay damages for mental pain and agony. The DDA cannot avoid its liability to reimburse the allottee for delay in delivery of the possession of the flat on the ground that it had paid interest to the allottee in terms of clause 10 of the brochure. The complainant, is therefore, entitled to damages for the period from 1-8-1988 till 14-6-1989 minus the period of one and a half months. It is not possible to determine the actual damages for the delivery of the possession of the flat. We think that the complainant will be amply compensated if interest @ 15% p.a. on the total price of the flat is given to him."
5. The National Commission has also taken note of the mental agony and harassment caused to the allottees. Taking note of the same, the National Commission held that the order of the State Commission was justified. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, we do not think it proper to exercise our jurisdiction under Art.136 of the Constitution to interfere with the impugned order.
6. In the result, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they stand dismissed. No costs.
7. Three months time is granted to comply with the directions as regards payment of interest given by the State Commission, as confirmed by the National Commission.
Civil Appeal No. 6150 of 2001
8. This appeal is by the Delhi Development Authority aggrieved by the order passed by the National Commission in the revision petition. The respondent approached the District Forum claiming compensation for deficiency in service. The complaint was accepted and relief was granted to the respondent in terms of the order passed by the District Forum. The appellant filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, but that appeal was barred by time by 199 days. The State Commission on a detailed consideration found that there was no sufficient cause shown for condoning the delay and not satisfied with the explanation given, rejected the application for the condonation of delay and consequently, rejected the appeal as well. The appellant took up the matter in revision before the National Commission. The National Commission held that the order passed by the State Commission was in its discretion; the appeal was rejected on the ground of delay of 199 days. In that view, the National Commission did not interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. Hence this appeal before us.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has got good case on merits; the delay was properly explained; the State Commission as well as the National Commission were not justified in refusing to condone the delay. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no question of law is involved to be considered in this appeal.
10. The State Commission in its discretion has refused to condone the delay on not being satisfied with the explanation given for the delay. The National Commission in the revision, confirmed the same.
11. We are not able to find fault with the order passed by the National Commission, when it affirmed the order passed by the State Commission on the ground that the discretion was properly exercised by the State Commission in not condoning the delay of 199 days in filing the appeal. Since the matter was not decided on merits and contentions raised in the appeal and no question of law is involved to be considered in this appeal, we do not think it proper to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
