National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Delhi Development Authority vs Indra Prakash Katyal on 18 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: III(2007)CPJ461(NC), AIR 2007 (NOC) 2603 (NCC) (NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI), 2007 (6) ALJ (NOC) 973 (NCC.) (NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. Complainant Indra Prakash Katyal applied to the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter be referred as DDA) for conversion of his property from leasehold to freehold. It is the say of the complainant that instead of taking action within a period of 90 days, as per the procedure, the DDA has taken more than two years to do the same and as such deficient in providing the service.
2. Complainant had applied for conversion on 18.11.1999 by depositing Rs. 22,955 with the DDA along with the documents. On 1.2.2000 the DDA asked the complainant to submit copies of two challans for payment of the ground rent. It was sent to DDA by registered post on 2.2.2000. Complainant alleges that the DDA again sent a letter dated 7.4.2000 asking him to supply the same copies, which were sent again by him on 17.4.2000. As he was being harassed by the officials of DDA, the complainant approached the Ministry of Urban Development for expediting the matter. He was asked to visit the DDA office personally on 8.2.2001 as he had lost the original leasedeed and he supplied a certified copy of the leasedeed. He was further asked to pay additional ground rent of Rs. 1,060 along with interest of Rs. 1,211. Complainant's complaint is that he had to pay an extra amount of Rs. 1,100 towards registration charges due to the delay in conversion. Accordingly, the complainant prayed for directions to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of Rs. 22,955 which was retained by DDA for more than 90 days and claimed refund of Rs. 1,060 charged excessively towards the ground rent along with interest charged on Rs. 1,211 and claimed Rs. 50,000 as expenses and Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation.
3. It was contended by the DDA that as they did not have the counterfoils of the amount deposited by the complainant they has asked him to provide the original copies, whereas he has given only the photocopies. Similarly, though, he was asked to submit the original lease deed but the complainant could give only the certified copy of the same, which caused delay in converting the leasehold right into freehold.
4. The District Forum held that there is abnormal delay of two years in converting the property from lease-hold to free hold, which is a deficiency in service. Accordingly, it directed the DDA to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as damages along with Rs. 1,000 as costs.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the DDA filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that deficiency of service is writ large on the face and, therefore, order of the District Forum does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal in limine, being devoid of merit.
6. Learned Counsel for the District Forum DDA brought to our notice the judgment of this Commission in DDA v. S.S. Puri I(1997) CPJ 86 (NC), and wherein it was held that:
The complainant is an allottee of the MIG flat on leasehold basis. He applied for conversion as leasehold rights into freehold rights in respect of the said flat. The complainant paid the conversion charges from leasehold to freehold. The deposit/ payment of the conversion charges is not for hiring of the services of the DDA. There is no hiring of service for consideration within the meaning and scope of the Consumer Protection Act.
7. Since then much water has flown into the sea and definition of service has undergone vast changes due to several judgments of the Apex Court relating to the services rendered by the statutory bodies like Lucknow Development Authority and Ghaziabad Development Authority, etc. In this case it is crystal clear that the complainant applied for conversion from leasehold to freehold and instead of raising all queries at one go, DDA raised the queries in instalments causing harassment to the complainant which is evident from several letters written by the DDA and the replies of the complainant, e.g. DDA has asked the complainant to furnish in "triplicate the copy of the challan No. 10004 dated 3.9.1984 amounting to Rs. 265 and challan No. 2658 dated 16.1.1997 amounting to Rs. 530, challan No. 2858 dated 16.1.1999, challan No. 121870 dated 16.1.1997 and challan No. 121872 dated 31.3.1999 and also submit the Bank certificate at S. No. 24825 and all the details of Ground Rent submitted by you". The justification given by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the DDA has lost the originals. If that is so, it is not the mistake of the complainant.
8. It is beyond our comprehension that all these requirements were not intimated to the complainant at one stroke so that he could have complied with the same within a month and he could have secured the order of DDA for making his property into a free-hold property within a stipulated period of 90 days. During the hearing, it was also brought to our notice that complainant had approached even the Urban Development Ministry, Government of India and various other authorities to expedite the issue of conversion of his property. Hence we are convinced that a bona fide consumer was harassed by the officials of the DDA in this case.
9. Complainant alleged during the hearing that the officials of DDA, purposefully delayed the grant of his request as they wanted to extract illegal gratifications from him. If he has any complaints regarding the officials of DDA about the demands of illegal gratification, he has to approach the relevant authorities in this regard. It is evident that there has been abnormal delay in granting the request of the complainant-consumer, as the request was made on 18.11.1999 and the order of conversion was issued only on 1.4.2002.
Definition of the word "Consumer" reads as under:
Consumer" means any person who-
[hire or avails of] any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed or with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].
10. As the complainant has paid Rs. 22,955 as consideration/fee for conversion, he is a consumer.
"Deficiency" has been defined in the Act in the following words:
Deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
11. In this case, the DDA has taken more than two years to convert the property of the complainant from leasehold to freehold and hence there is a deficiency in service.
12. The definition of this word "Service" under the Consumer Protection Act as amended from time-to-time, reads as follows:
'Service' means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
13. As conversion of leasehold property into freehold is a facility in connection with the housing construction, it is covered by the definition of service.
14. The Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta has held that:
Construction of a house or flat is for the benefit of person for whom it is constructed. He may do it himself or hire service of a builder or contractor. The latter being for consideration is service as defined in the Act. Similarly, when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and other statutory service. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act. Any defect in construction activity would be denial of comfort and service to a consumer. When possession of property is not delivered within stipulated period the delay so caused is denial of service. Such disputes or claims are not in respect of immovable property as argued but deficiency in rendering of service of particular standard, quality or grade. Such deficiencies or omissions are defined in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (r) of Section 2 as unfair trade practice. If a builder of a house uses sub-standard material in construction of a building or makes false or misleading representation about the condition of the house then it is denial of the facility or benefit of which a consumer is entitled to claim value under the Act. When the contractor or builder undertakes to erect a house or flat then it is inherent in it that he shall perform his obligation as agreed to.
The entire purpose of widening the definition of 'Service' in Section 2(o) is to include in it not only day-to-day buying of goods by a common man but even to such activities which are otherwise not commercial but professional or service oriented in nature. The provisions in the Acts, namely, Lucknow Development Act, Delhi Development Act or Bangalore Development Act clearly provide for preparing plan, development of land, and framing of scheme, etc. Therefore, if such authority undertakes to construct building or allot houses or building sites to citizens of the State either as amenity or as benefit then it amounts to rendering of service and will be covered in the expression 'service made available to potential users'. A person who applies for allotment of a building site or for a flat constructed by the development authority or enters into an agreement with a builder or a contractor is a potential user and nature of transaction is covered in the expression 'service of any description'. It further indicates that the definition is not exhaustive. The inclusive clause succeeded in widening its scope but not exhausting the services which could be covered in earlier part. So any service except when it is free of charge or under a constraint of personal service is included in it. Since housing activity is a service it was covered in the clause as it stood before 1993.
Further the Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.
15. The conducting observation of the Supreme Court in this case is relevant, which reads as follows:
It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.
16. This judgment of the Supreme Court has been fortified by another judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh , wherein it has held that:
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e., an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. The Commission /Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine the amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for this sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of the law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/ public servant. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Matters which require immediate attention should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation. If the Commission/ Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct the authority to pay compensation and also direct recovery from those found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour.
17. The ratio of the above landmark judgments are squarely applicable to this case. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the revision petition. Hence, dismissed. The revision petitioner shall pay Rs. 25,000 as costs to the respondent/complainant within 30 days from the date of this order and then recover the same from the concerned officials who are responsible for causing abnormal delay in rendering service to the complainant.