State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Dayawati on 31 January, 2007
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: 31.01.2007 First Appeal No.1254/2006 (Arising from the order dated 03.10.2006 passed by District Forum(South-I), Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint case No.1557/2004) Delhi Development Authority Appellant Vikas Sadan, INA, through Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, New Delhi. advocate. Versus Smt. Dayawati . Respondent W/o Late Sh. Raghunath Rai, Flat No.140, Pocket GH-13, Paschim Vihar New Delhi. 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 (Oral)
1. Vide impugned order dated 03.10.2006, passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant has been directed to pay interest @10% p.a. on the amount deposited by the son of the respondent upto 14.05.2003 as the interest upto August 2001 has already been paid and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the respondent at its hand.
2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this appeal.
3. The relevant facts for our purpose are that the deceased Sh. Manish Kumar purchased Shop No.F-19, 1st Floor, District Centre, Janak Puri, Plot No.2-A, measuring 17.4 sq. mtrs in the open auction on 12.08.1996 for a sum of Rs.9,14,000/-. The earnest money of Rs.2,28,500/- was paid to the appellant on 12.08.1996 itself. The balance amount of Rs.7,12,965/- was paid on 04.10.1996 as per the demand raised by the appellant. However, thereafter the appellant failed to issue the possession letter despite several requests by the deceased. Ultimately it was revealed to the deceased that the area of the shop in question was in fact 40.77 sq. mtr instead of 17.4 sq. mtrs as advertised at the time of auction. On account of this discrepancy, the appellant was not issuing the possession letter of the shop. It is alleged that the deceased was 26 years young and was unemployed youth and that he died on 12.10.1999 due to mental agony suffered by him on account of non-delivery of the possession of the plot in question. The respondent i.e. mother of the deceased Sh. Manish Kumar approached the Lok Adalat of the appellant for refund of the money with interest @25% p.a. and vide orders dated 27.02.2001 and 03.07.2001, the Ld. Lok Adalat directed the appellant to refund the money with interest @15%. However the appellant did not comply with the orders. The respondent again approached Lok Adalat, which reiterated the previous orders but in vein. Ultimately the appellant sent a cheque for Rs.13,56,976/- dated 14.05.2003 to the respondent purported to be in compliance of the orders of the Lok Adalat. However, it was found that interest had been calculated @10% p.a. only and for the period from October 1996 to August 2001. The respondent is seeking interest @18% p.a. from October 1996 to 14.05.2003 and compensation etc.
4. As against this the version of the appellant in brief was that the possession letter of the shop in question was not issued due to difference in size of the shop. The area of the shop was in fact 40.77 sq. mtrs instead of 17.4 sq. mtrs. The allottee was asked to make the payment on pro-rata basis but she declined to pay this cost. It has been further stated that the Vice Chairman of the DDA approved payment of interest only 10% p.a. upt o30.08.2001, which was paid. It has been further stated that after the death of the allottee the mutation in the name of the respondent took sometime.
5. In this regard the appellant referred to letters dated 08.11.2001, 04.01.2002, 30.04.2002, 11.07.2002.27.08.2002 sent by it to the respondent. No proof has been produced by the appellant for the dispatch or receipt of the letters. It is astonishing that what prompted the authorities to go on sending these letters whereas in ordinary practice they even do not react to the representation made by the consumers. However, be that at it may the fact remains that the payment was made on 14.05.2003 and it was the respondent herself who had approached Lok Adalat and during the proceedings after the death of the allottee she was never asked to get mutation registered in her name. Even if she had been asked still the fact remains that the possession of the shop was not delivered to the allottee in his life as such there was no need for mutation proceedings when the refund was asked for.
6. The inordinate delay in not refunding the amount for no fault of the respondent amounts to grossest kind of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, which in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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 undertake to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
7. There is no infirmity in the order.
The appeal in dismissed in limine. However, the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded as compensation over and above the interest shall be deemed as cost of the proceedings as the respondent inspite of having approached the Lok Adalat twice and having obtained orders of Lok Adalat was again forced to approach the District Forum for seeking redressal of her grievance. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on 31st day of January 2007.
(Justice J.D.Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri