State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Pankaj Aggarwal on 30 July, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 30.7.2013 First Appeal 8/2012 (Arising out of the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the District Forum (North East), Nand Nagari, Delhi in complaint case No. 55/2011 Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi ....Appellant VS Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal, C-41/Z-2, C-Block, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110 095 ..Respondent CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
1. The facts of the case are that on 11.10.2010 the complainant applied for the conversion of flat No. B-10/111, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-85 from lease hold to free hold before the OP DDA and filed the documents on 15.10.2010. The complainant deposited Rs.59,800/- towards the conversion fee and Rs.200/- as a processing fee for conversion from lease hold to free hold with the OP DDA. On demand of the OP DDA, the complainant also deposited Rs.1745/- as the service tax and Rs.420/- as the ground rent on 23.9.2010. The OP then demanded from the complainant Rs.800/- in Feb., 2011 as the watch and watch charges, which the complainant opposed, but ultimately the complainant had to deposit the said watch and ward charges with the OP and the OP carried out the conversion of flat from lease hold to free hold on 5.12.2011.
2. The complainant then filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP on the ground that the OP was legally bound to do the conversion of flat from lease hold to free hold within 90 days from the date of application i.e. 11th Oct., 2010 and claimed a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as the litigation cost.
3. The OP filed the WS and opposed the claim that the conversion did not amounts to the hiring of the services within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the OP has completed the process of conversion from lease hold to free hold within 86 working days, and if there was any delay, it was due to the acts of the complainant. Under section 14(1)(d)of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as no loss occurred to the complainant. The District Forum, after consideration of evidence of both the parties, held the OP guilty for delay in ordering the conversion and directed the OP to pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as the costs of litigation further directing the vice-Chairman DDA to recover this amount from the officers/officials responsible for delay.
4. That is what brings the appellant/OP in appeal before this Commission.
5. We have heard Ms. Grija Wadhwa, Counsel for the Appellant and respondent present in person in this appeal.
6. For a fuller view of the picture in the case the order of the District Consumer Forum may also be seen. The only question in the appeal is whether the complainant respondent is entitled to damages for the delay in conversion of flat in question from lease hold to free hold.
7. In the brochure 90 days time has been prescribed for the same. The DDA took 197 days to get the conversion accomplished. There is obvious delay and consequent violation of brochure agreement between the parties.
8. It was urged from the side of the D.D.A. that 90 days in the agreement meant 90 working days. The mention of 90 days in the agreement cannot ipso facto be deemed as 90 working days. If that was the intention behind the brochure there was no hitch and hesitation in mentioning 90 working days instead of 90 days. The contention is sanf substratum.
9. The case decided by the National Consumer Commission in the year 1995 the reference where of is DDA vs. S.S. Puri (1995) CPJ 1 has been cited from the side of the DDA appellant and it has been argued on the basis thereof that since the complainant did not suffer any loss he is not entitled to any compensation as granted by District Forum.
10. The loss referred to in the aforesaid decision implies monetary loss only.
There is a reference of injury also in the said decision, on the basis whereof compensation may be granted. Injury includes harassment. mental or physical, and as such compensation can be granted for injury on the basis of harassment. The aforesaid decision of the National Consumer Commission will not therefore alleviate the liability of the DDA appellant to pay compensation.
11. It was agreed from the side of the appellant that the Conversion from lease hold to free hold and the charges there under is not service within Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, as held in the decision `Supra of the National Consumer Commission. It is mentioned in the brochure that the conversion will be completed within 90 days and the brochure constitutes an agreement between the parties and the DDA is supposed to comply within the condition mentioned in the brochure and can wriggle itself out of the commitment. Agreements must be strictly imposed and if that is not done there will be turmoil and chaos in the society and in business dealing in particular.
12. The DDA must therefore deemed to be bound by what has been said in the brochure.
13. Appeal dismissed.
14. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
15. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Arya