The Secretary-cum-chief Engineer, H.P. Housing Board      ... Appellant
Vs.
Dr. S.K. Ahluwalia                                                            ... Respondent

Before : Hon'ble Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi

      This appeal has been filed by the Secretary-cum-chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Housing Board, Opposite Party before the State Commission, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the State Commission directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent herein (the complainant before the State Commission).

      The complainant had made an application in 1982 to the appellant Board for the purchase of a constructed garage, the tentative cost of which had been fixed by the Board at Rs.25,000/-. The complainant deposited Rs.2,000/- in the office of the Board on July 30, 1982 at the time of his filing the application by a latter Annexure 'R-6' dated May 8, 1983 - the complainant was informed by the Board that he had been allotted garage No. 3, the tentative cost of which was Rs.30,000/-.

      By the said letter the complainant was directed to deposit the first instalment of Rs.10,000/- before September 25, 1983 and the second instalment of Rs.10,000/- before October 20, 1983, the balance amount of Rs.8,000/- being payable at the time of delivery of possession. In compliance therwith, the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on May 19, 1983 and a similar amount on October 10, 1983.

      After a lapse of nearly 6 years thereafter the complainant was informed by the Board by letter dated September 4, 1989 that the cost of the garage has finally been enhanced to Rs. 49,000/- and that th complainant should deposit the balance amount of Rs.27,000/- within 45 days. This demand for payment of the additional amount was objected to by the complainant but since the Board insisted on payment of the said amount of Rs.27,000/- also, before giving delivery of possession, the complainant deposited that additional amount and took possession of the garage. Thereafter he preferred the complaint before the State Commission claiming an amount of Rs. 2,47,000/- from the Board by way of recovery of the enhanced cost collectd from him and also compensation for mental torture, inconvenience and enormous delay in providing the garage to him.

      After discussing the evidence in detail, the State Commission came to the conslusion that the complainant should have been delivered possion of garaage within a reasonable period from the date of his application filed in 1982 which, in the opinion of the State Commission, could not exceed two years. The State Commission found that the delay in constructing the garage for a period of more than 6 years was not at all due to any fault on the part of the complainant and that the respondent Board was solely responsible for the said delay. Hence in the opinion of the State Commission the respondent was not justified in keeping with itself for a period of more than 6 years the amount of Rs.22,000/- deposited by the complainant. The State Commission has observed that if the construction or delivery of possession of the garge was going to be delayed, the Board should not have called upon the complainant to deposit Rs.22,000/- before October, 1983. In this view, the State Commission held that the complainant had been wrongfully deprived of the use of Rs.22,000/- which was deposited by him in the office of the Board in 1982-83 for a period of more that 6 years and since the complainant had been compelled by the Board to pay the price of the garage at the rate prevailing in 1989, it was only just and proper that interest at 12 % per annum should be allowed to the complainant on the amount of Rs. 22,000/- for the period during which the said amount remained deposited with the respondent. Such interest aggregated to Rs. 15,840/- and rounding up the said figure, the State Commission has fixed the compensation payble to the complainant at Rs. 16,000/-.

      Notwithstanding the earnest efforts made by the appellant's learned Advocate to persuade us to interfere with the afore-mentioned findings recorded by the State Commission, we do not find any valid ground whatever to differ from the conclusion reached by the State Commission. There is no explanation as to why the appellant-Board called upon the complainant by letter dated May 9, 1983 to deposit two instalments of Rs.10,000/- each on May 25, 1983 and October 20, 1983, if  there was no reasonable prospect of the garage being constructed and possession thereof delivered to the complainant shortly thereafter. After collecting the second instalment from the complainant on October 20, 1983, there was total inaction and silence on the part of the Board for a period of nearly six years until September 4, 1989 when the complainant was informed by the Board that the cost of the garage had been further enhanced to Rs.49,000/- and that he should deposit the balance amount of Rs.27,000/- within a period of 45 days. During that long period of delay, the cost of construction had escalated and the complainant had been compelled to pay a sum of Rs.27,000/- by way of enhancement in the price of the garage. When the cost of the garage was revised and fixed on the basis of the rates prevailing in 1989, it is only just and proper that the complainant should be awarded interest on the sum of Rs.22,000/- belonging to him which was in the hands of the appellant-Board. The finding recorded to the above effect by the State Commission is perfectly just and sound.

      We may observe that we are of the view that the complainant should have been awarded interest by the State Commission at the rate of 18 per cent per annum that being the rate of interest stipulated by the Board as payable in respect of delayed remittances. However since there is no appeal before us by the complainant, we do not interfere with the award made by the State Commission, computing the interest at 12 per cent per annum.

      In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed.