State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Divender Kumar vs Delhi State Industrial & Inf. Dev. Corp. ... on 6 November, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 06.11.2013 Case No. FA-302/11 (Arising from the order dated 26.5.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1018/06 by the District Consumer Forum-VI, District New Delhi, Barracks, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001.) DIVENDER KUMAR, S/O PRAKASH CHAND - APPELLANT Proprietor M/s Nu-Plast Industries (Previously at B-11701 & B-1728, Shastri Nagar, Delhi) NM-61, Sector-III, DSIIDC Industrial Area, Bawan, Delhi - 110039 Versus 1. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INF. DEV. CORP. LTD. - RESPONDENTS M-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Patparganj Industrial Area, New Delhi - 110092 CORAM : S.A. SIDDIQUI - Member (Judicial) S.C. JAIN - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? yes S.A. SIDDIQUI (ORAL) ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order dated 26.5.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum -VI in Complaint Case No. 1018/2006
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that under the scheme of Govt. of NCT of Delhi for relocation of Industries from non-conforming areas to conforming Industrial areas, complainant/appellant applied for allotment of a plot of 200 sq. mt area with the Commissioner of Industries in December 1996. After conducting the survey of the existing unit on 10.11.1997, Deputy Director of Industries, Sh. T.P. Singh, recommended for allotment of a plot having area 150 sq. mt but a cutting was made to make it 100 sq. mt. It was alleged that under some wrong notion, the file was referred to DSIIDC for allotment of the plot. The DSIIDC vide its letter dated 25.4.2000, based on preliminary scrutiny informed the complainant/appellant that his unit has been provisionally found eligible for allotment of alternative plot admeasuring 150 sq. mt. By another letter dated 1010.2000, the DSIIDC found the complainant/appellants unit prima/facie F category unit and decided to allot as per entitlement in Bawan Industrial Area. The complainant was informed that on the basis of draw of lots held on 8.10.2000, he was found successful for allotment of industrial plot of 150 sq. mt area in Pocket M, bearing No. 61 in Sector 3 (Later on shifted to Pocket N).
The complainant/appellant was directed to close his unit at existing location by 31.3.2001. Through another letter dated 25.9.2001, demand for balance 50% payment of the cost of the plot was made latest by 31.1.2001, which was duly complied with. As per letter dated 25.9.2001, the process of handing over the possession letter was to commence from 1st Nov., 2001 on payment of the cost of plot and after completion of the legal formalities. Legal formalities were completed by 6.2.2002 and the possession letter was to be issued immediately thereafter. It was wrong to have alleged by the DSIIDC that legal formalities were completed on 25.9.2002. The DSIIDC slept over for almost nine months and only in November 2002, the process of handing over of possession letter was taken up and on finding that the Commissioner of Industries had erred in recommending for 100 sq. mt plot, unnecessarily referred back to the Commissioner of Industries for clarification on 25.11.2002. The file with office note of DSIIDC was received in the office of Commissioner of Industries on 9.12.2002. On scrutiny/examination, it was found that the recommendations of 100 sq. mtr made earlier in the year 1997 were not in accordance with the criteria/policy of allotment laid down. The complainant/appellants unit was found eligible for allotment of 150 sq. mts. plot and it was ordered to be put before the sub-committee in its next meeting vide office note/order dated 7.2.2003. The file remained unattended for almost about six months and only when the appellant met Commissioner of Industries on 23.7.2003 with written representation, the case was placed before the 5th meeting of the sub-committee of land and flat on 13.8.2003, when it was resolved that unit/premises may be got inspected either from Zonal Deputy Director of Industries or the securitizing officer/DDI Sh. T.P. Singh or the Present Chairman of the Appeal Committee, Sh. A.K. Madan, DDI. The case was assigned to Sh. A.K. Madan, DDI on 5.9.2003. No such inspection/visit was conducted for another six months. It was only when another representation was made both with DSIIDC and Commissioner of Industries on 3.3.2004 and copy to Honble Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi, that the inspection of the unit of the appellant was conducted on 16.3.2004 by Sh. T.P. Singh. The land and flat allotment committee in its 37th meeting held on 17.3.2004 based on the inspection report agreed that the unit was eligible for 150 sq. mt plot.
3. The complainant after taking possession of plot demanded interest @ 7% on the EMD of Rs. 60,000/- and 12% on full amount (Rs. 6,30,000/-) for delay from 2001 to 2004. However, he was informed by the department in reply to the RTI application that only 7% interest of EMD was payable and that there was no stipulation for payment of interest of 12% till delivery of possession in terms of allotment scheme. Unsatisfied with the reply, complainant/appellant decided to file complaint under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Through this complaint, the complainant demanded payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- for loss of earning for non-utilization of the amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- from 31.10.2001 till May 2004, damages to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh and compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and pain.
4. The Ld. District Forum through its impugned judgment and order dated 13.8.2008 held that interest @ 12% demanded for delayed possession was not payable but allowed a compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh on account of delayed possession and Rs. 50,000/- for cost of litigation.
5. The DSIIDC preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 13.8.2008. The Honble State Commission after hearing the appeal set aside the impugned order dated 13.8.2008 and remitted back the matter to the District Forum for deciding it afresh strictly in terms of relief sought by the complainant and also for impleadment of the Commissioner of Industries.
6. Ld. District Forum in compliance of the order of the Honble State Commission heard the matter afresh and through its impugned order dated 26.5.2011 dismissed the complaint. The complainant was dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 26.5.2011 and preferred this appeal interalia on the following main grounds besides the others:
(i) That the impugned order dated 26.5.2011 suffer from inherent inconsistencies/ambiguities in holding that the complainant/appellant was inconsiderate to the indulgence and benevolence shown to him by the Government. As a matter of fact, both the departments of DSIIDC and Commissioner of industries committed undue delay for their ulterior motives in the matter of scrutiny/allotment of plot of eligible size. There was no cogent reason for referring back the case to the Commissioner of Industries for review especially when all the formalities for handing over the possession letter were completed in Feb., 2002. The delay caused could not be brushed aside by terming it procedural in Govt.
Departments. The complainant was liable to be compensated on this count and the Ld. District Forum reached on an erroneous conclusion when it dismissed the complaint.
(ii) The District Forum erred in not allowing any interest on the amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- utilized by the DSIIDC to its gain and benefit from Nov. 2001 to May 2004 for which the appellant suffered and sustained immense loss in its non utilization for gainful purpose.
(iii) The complainant/appellant claimed interest only @ 12% p.a. whereas 18% p.a. is being charged by the DSIIDC for any default in payment by the allottees.
(iv) The Ld. DCDRF further erred in holding that the complaint was time barred.
7. No written reply was filed by the OPs. However, both the sides filed their written arguments.
8. We have heard Sh. Prakash Chand, Father and AR for the Appellant and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Counsel for the Respondent.
9. Undisputed facts are that after full payment, allottee was required to complete prescribed legal formalities and filed NOC etc. The formalities were formally completed by 25.9.2002. Actual delivery of possession took place on 19.5.2004 only.
Gap between 25.9.2002 to 19.5.2004 was sought to be explained by the DSIIDC. After taking over possession of the allotted plot on 19.5.2004, the complainant/appellant started thinking in terms of money. He strongly felt that money deposited by him remained with the Government for about 3 years and the Government stood benefitted in as much as it earned interest on the money deposited by him. He, therefore, made a demand for compensation on account of loss and damage sustained due to inflation and increase in cost of construction between Nov. 2001 and May 2004. However, he became totally unconcerned and inconsiderate towards the indulgence and benevolence shown by the Government. He also failed to consider that in Government Departments, files from one table to the other moved at a slow pace and that procedural delay in Government Departments are very common as there is none to take personal interest.
Therefore, these things should have been considered in their proper prospective rather than weighing them in terms of money or in terms of gain and loss.
10. The term Deficiency has been defined in Section 2 (1) (g ) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Deficiency means any fault, any imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality and nature and manner of performance, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for time being in force or has been under taken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
11. The Ld. District Forum in its impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.2011 rightly held that the loss of earning or loss due to inflation are not matter of imperfection, deficiency, shortcoming etc. The remedy lies in filing a proper suit before Competent Civil Court.
Customer Courts are not concerned in such matters. The complainant/appellant has alleged malafide on the part of the OPs/respondents but we fail to find any substance in the allegations.
The Respondents/OPs produced official records and minutes of the 37th meeting of the Land and Flat Allotment Committee on 17.4.2004. The case of the appellant/complainant remained under consideration bonafidely.
12. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.5.2011 much less irregularity or illegality, therefore, the appeal is found without force and is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.21011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1018/06 by District Forum VI is hereby confirmed
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be provided to the parties free of charge and one copy be sent to the District Forum-VI to place in file of Complaint Case No. 1018/06 and thereafter, file be consigned to Record Room.
(S.A. SIDDIQUI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (S.C. JAIN) MEMBER rn