State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Daya Nand on 14 March, 2008
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: 14-03-2008 Appeal No. A-2007/298 (Arising from the order dated 10-01-2007 passed by District Forum(North), Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.1459/2006) Delhi Development Authority, Appellant Vikas Sadan, INA, Through New Delhi. Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate. Versus Mr. Daya Nand, Respondent S/o Late Badlu Ram, Through R/o C-14F, Vijeta Vihar, Mr. Sama Singh, ( Delhi Police Society), Advocate. Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 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 having been illegally charged ground rent and maintenance charges on the shop allotted to the respondent for the period from 11-02-1993 to 10-02- 2006 amounting to Rs.1,20,727/- the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 10th January 2007 found the appellant guilty for deficiency in service and directed it to execute the Perpetual Lease Deed/Conveyance Deed in respect of shop bearing NO. 13 situated at CSC-6, Sector 7, DDA Market, Delhi on deposit of Rs. 29,880/- as Ground Rent Charges and equal amount of Rs. 29,880/- as maintenance charges upto 10-02-2006 by the respondent and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. The case of the respondent before the District Forum in nutshell was that Shop No. 13, CSC-6, Sector 7, DDA Market, Rohini, Delhi was allotted to his father, namely Sh. Badlu Ram and his mother Smt. Bhakti Devi in auction held on 17-09-1992 by the appellant and that his father had made full payment to the appellant and had completed all the formalities. The father of the respondent had executed special power of attorney in respect of said shop in favour of the respondent. After completion of all the formalities appellant had issued possession slip in the name of the respondent and possession of the shop was handed over to the respondent on 11-02-1993. It was the case of the respondent that since file related to the above said shop was misplaced, necessary Lease Deed/Conveyance Deed could not be executed from 1993 to 2005. However, after the respondent had repeatedly visited the office of the appellant, the shop in question was mutated by it in his favour on 08-12-2005. However, appellant failed to execute Lease Deed/Conveyance Deed in his favour despite repeated requests and letters written to them and in spite of legal notice dated 27-02-2006 served on the appellant. On the other hand appellant demanded maintenance charges from the respondent although they have not carried out any maintenance in the said market where the shop of the respondent was situated and in fact no development whatsoever had taken place in the said market and the said market has been illegally occupied by Rikshaw Pullars, vagabonds and unsocial elements. So complaining deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, present complaint was filed by the respondent for directing the appellant to execute Lease Deed/Conveyance Deed in respect of shop No. 13, CSC-6, Sector 7, DDA Market, Rohini and also to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment.
4. As against this the preliminary objection taken by the appellant was that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the complaint filed by the respondent was highly time barred under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
5. On merits it was pleaded by the appellant that the shop in question was allotted to Sh. Badlu Ram and Smt. Bhakti devi in an auction held on 12-09-1992 and physical possession of the said shop was handed over to the allottee on 11-02-1993. Said allottee had expired and respondent had submitted application on 13-01-2005 along with documents for execution of perpetual lease deed in his favour. Since the shop was not mutated, the respondent was directed to apply for mutation of the shop in his favour and that after completion of all the formalities, shop was transferred/mutated in the name of the respondent and mutation letter was issued to him on 08-12-2005. Since no maintenance charges and ground rent were paid in respect of said shop, vide letter dated 26-05-2005, 12-01-2005 and 08-06-2006 the respondent was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,20,727/- towards ground rent and maintenance charges including the accrued interest thereon. Since the said amount has not been deposited by the respondent as per terms and conditions of the allotment of the shop, the perpetual Lease Deed/Conveyance Deed could not be executed in favour of the respondent.
6. The impugned order has been assailed by the appellant mainly on the following premises:-
(i) That as per terms and conditions ground rent and maintenance charges were to be paid in advance in each year by the purchaser and was required to submit proof of payment at the beginning of the year.
(ii) Respondent had taken possession in the year 1993 and he has not paid maintenance charges and ground rent till 2005.
(iii) As per terms and conditions of the auction the respondent was also required to pay interest on the maintenance charges and ground rent charges.
7. Be that as it may the fact remains that the appellant was callous and negligent in not verifying whether the respondent had been making payment of the ground rent and maintenance charges and slept over the matter for 12 long years. Even if there was no requirement on the part of the appellant to issue yearly demands as to the ground rent or the maintenance charges still the appellant was duty bound to verify whether any such payment has been made or not. No party can be allowed to take advantage of its own acts of omission and commission. Appellant could not execute the Lease Deed/Conveyance Deed for 12 long years and for its own gross negligence appellant wants to punish the respondent. Instead of taking action against concerned official who did not bother to make recovery of ground rent and maintenance charges from the respondent for 12 long years the appellant slapped interest of 18% for such a long period which was wholly unjustified and uncalled for. Had the respondent not paid rent for another 15 or 20 years appellant would have gone into slumber and suddenly woken and charged 10 times more by way of interest than the actual charges.
8. Even if it is presumed that there were arrears of ground rent or maintenance charges, these could have been recovered through legal process but not by denying the execution of conveyance deed after having received the entire sale consideration or the price of the flat.
9. However, the District Forum had ordered the appellant to refund ground rent and maintenance charges which the respondent had already paid. In the peculiar facts of the case we feel inclined to set aside the compensation awarded by the District Forum and maintain cost of litigation and rest of the order.
10. Order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
11. Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
12. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
14. Announced on the 14th March, 2008 (Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj