State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V.P. Narayanan vs Delhi Development Authority on 21 February, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 21st February 2006 Complaint case No. C-137/94 Shri V.P. Narayanan Complainant S/o Late Sh. G.P. Nair, R/o Flat No. D/172, Ground Floor, Category III, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. Versus Delhi Development Authority Opposite Party Through its Vice Chairman, Through Second Floor, Block D, Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Vikas Sadan, Near INA Colony, Advocate. New Delhi-110023. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal- Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) On account of the alleged inaction and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party-Delhi Development Authority (DDA) resulting in the increase in the cost of the flat allotted to the complainant, complainant has through this complaint demanded refund of the excess amount of Rs. 4,31,240/- with interest besides litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.
2. Relevant facts lie in a moderate compass and are like this. The OP-DDA by its Notification in July 1992 invited applications from those registrants of semi-finished flats who were to retire by 31st December 1993, for semi-finished flats in order to provide those registrants a suitable accommodation in Delhi, prior to their retirement. The complainant was to retire in May 1993. In pursuance of the application of the complainant he was allotted Flat No. D-172, Ground Floor, Category III, Pocket D at Sarita Vihar, New Delhi for a total cost of Rs. 6,83,150/- inclusive of Rs. 15,00/- which was deposited by him in the year 1985.
3. This intimation was provided to the complainant by letter No. 128(164)/92/SFS/SV/111 dated 11th August 1992. It was further stated in that letter that he was to deposit the due amount within 60 days from the date of issue of the letter dated 10th August, 1992, failing which he was liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the first month and 18% per annum for the subsequent months and on expiry of 120 days the allotment shall be automatically cancelled.
4. Since the OP has increased the price without any basis and without there being so much actual increase in the cost, the complainant had no other option but to pay/deposit the demanded amount as he was in dire need of accommodation. As the amount was on higher side, and could not be arranged in such short period, the complainant through his letter dated 2nd September 1992 requested to the Member (Finance), DDA for extension of time for payment of the due amount. He further asked that he may be given time to deposit the due amount by the first week of June 1993 without any interest. As there was no response from the DDA, the complainant by taking loans from all available source, paid the due amount on 4th December 1992, i.e. Rs. 6,70,000/-.
5. After the complainant had deposited the due amount he was not given possession of the house/flat. On one of his visits to office of OP he was intimated that he was required to pay 12% per annum and 18% per annum interest for two months on the demanded amount.
As he was not in a position to raise any dispute, therefore paid the said amount calculated to be Rs. 15,040/- on 30th April 1993. He wrote a letter dated 11th January 1993 wherein he stated that in a visit to the site it has transpired and been revealed that it will take another 5-6 months for the flat to be ready, thus the complainant asked for the interest on the amount he has deposited with the DDA, till the time he is given possession of the house/flat. When the payment which was demanded by the DDA for the flat was given by the complainant, he came to know that for a flat of the same make, type, kind, category in the same locality possession of which was given to its owner two months back cost only Rs. 4.10 lakhs. Thus the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs in excess.
It also came to the notice of the complainant that such make, type, kind, category flat in the same locality cost only Rs. 2,78,800/- to those registrants who got them in 1989. The OP is a State and one of its objects is to allot/provide houses/accommodation on the basis of no profit no loss. There was no reason with the OP to enhance the cost of the flat from Rs. 2,78,800/- to Rs. 7.10,000/-. Hence this complaint.
6. While justifying the cost of the flat allotted to the complainant in the year 1985 the intimation of which was provided to him in the year 1992, the OP-DDA has come up with the following version:-
(i) That the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued on 11-08-1992 and he was asked to make the payment of Rs. 6,68,150/- within 60 days towards the cost of the flat from the date of issue of this letter under intimation failing which the complainant was liable to pay interest @ 12 % for the first month and 18% for subsequent months.
(ii) The complainant asked for extension on 2nd September 1992 for making the payment.
He was granted extension of 90 days subject to payment of charges but he made payment on 4th December 1992 whereby he was required to pay interest @ 12% for the first month and thereafter 18% for subsequent period.
The interest amount was paid on 30th April 1993.
(iii) The complainant completed the formalities on 19th May 1993 and possession letter was issued on 25th May 1993. Thereafter he took the possession in May 1993. As such there is no delay on the part of the OP-DDA in giving the possession of the flat.
7. As is apparent from the aforesaid facts the main grievance of the complainant is that those who were allotted flat in the year 1989 paid Rs. 2,78,800/- towards the cost of the flat whereas the same flat which was allotted to him in the year 1992 was priced at Rs. 6,83,150/-.
8. Since the pricing of the flat does not come within the consumer dispute as the pricing was made by the OP in terms of Rules and Regulations and for bringing the complainant at par with those persons who were allotted flat in the same locality and same category at the same price as at the relevant year was charged.
9. Circumstances explained by the OP in not handing over the possession of the flat inspite of having received the total cost of Rs. 6,70,000/- on 4th December 1992 and only Rs. 15,040/- was payable towards interest, the OP was not justified in withholding possession after having accepted the actual cost of the flat. The scheme floated by the OP was for the welfare of retired and retiring employees and to make such a consumer wait unnecessarily for possession inspite of having received the payment of the actual cost as well as part of the interest by the OP was deficiency in service as the amount of Rs. 15,040/- demanded as interest could have been raised subsequently which was not a substantial amount.
10. Apart from this, retention of the registration amount of Rs. 15,000/- by the OP for seven long years was not justified even if the complainant was not successful for the allotment of flat of his choice. This amounts to unfair trade practice.
11. Deficiency in service on the part of the OP for taking seven long year in making flat available after having accepted the registration amount of Rs. 15,000/-
and the delay in delivering the possession inspite of having received actual cost of the flat entitles the complainant to compensation.
12. In the result, we allow the complaint by awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. The aforesaid payment shall be made within one month.
13. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
14. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
15. Announced on the 21st day of February 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj