National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Delhi Development Authority vs Mr. R.K. Bhilwaria on 19 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION
PETITION NO.
4008 OF 2014
(From the order dated 04-09-2014 in
Appeal No. 1013/2013 of the
State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VIKAS SADAN, INA,
NEW DELHI
...........Petitioner/Opposite
party
Versus
MR. R.K. BHILWARIA
C-298,SECTOR-122,
DISTRICT: GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR
NOIDA : -201301
U.P
...........Respondent/Complainant
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. S. CHAUDHARI,
PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Girija
Wadhwa, Advocate
For the Respondent :
In person
PRONOUNCED ON
19th JANUARY, 2015
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 04-09-2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1013/2013 DDA Vs. Shri R.K. Bhilwaria, by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent got himself registered for the allotment of flat with the appellant /DDA, in a scheme known as Ambedkar Avas Yojna meant for SC/ST candidates. The complainant applied for MIG flat and paid a sum of Rs.12,200/- towards registration charges. In the year 1996-97, in a draw of lots, he was allotted a flat. The petitioner/Opposite party failed to handover the possession of the flat in a span of 9 years. The complainant approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, Parliament Committee, Director Public Grievances and Cabinet Secretariat.
Complainant was then informed that he would be allotted flat no. 191, 2nd Floor, Sector A-10, Pocket-6, Group-II, Narela, New Delhi. Allotment letter was issued. The complainant deposited Rs.6,88,500/- towards cost of the flat and Rs.55,340/- towards the stamp duty charges. Vide letter dated 13th April, 2006, petitioner/opposite party asked the complainant to take physical possession of the flat allotted. Physical possession was not given to him on one or the other pretext. Finally on 14th June, 2005, he was informed that the flat in question stood already handed over to Delhi Police. Complainant again started approaching agencies like Public Grievances Cell, Cabinet Secretariat for help. Finally another MIG flat bearing no. 95, 2nd Floor, Sector-A-10, Pocket-6, Group-2, Narela, New Delhi was allotted to him by way of draw of lots held on 13th Sept., 2006. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and admitted that MIG flat No. 483 was allotted to the complainant but as complainant failed to deposit cost of the flat, allotment was cancelled. His case was again examined and another flat no. 191 was allotted to him and complainant deposited cost of the flat along with stamp duty. It was further submitted that possession of flat could not be given as possession of flat no. 191 had already been handed over to Delhi Police on 13-10-2004 and in such circumstances another MIG flat no. 95, 2nd floor, Sector-A-10, Pocket-6, Group-2, Narela was allotted to him and demand-cum-allotment letter was issued on 22-12-2006 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to hand over possession of flat without charging any extra money. It was further directed that opposite party will bear conveyance deed charges and further directed opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakh. Opposite party filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal, against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was entitled to recovery of Rs.7,025/- difference of price and further submitted that even without prayer for grant of compensation, learned District Forum committed error in granting compensation and learned State Commission further committed error in upholding compensation, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent submitted that though he did not pray for compensation but he proved deficiency on the part of the opposite party, hence compensation was rightly awarded and revision petition be dismissed.
5. As far Rs.7,025/- is concerned, learned District Forum rightly observed that petitioner is not entitled to recover difference of amount and learned State Commission rightly dismissed appeal to this extent. Possession of flat was not handed over by petitioner to respondent inspite of depositing full demanded amount for flat no. 191 and even after executing conveyance deed and in such circumstances petitioner was not entitled to ask for additional Rs.7,025/- from the respondent and to this extent revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. As far grant of compensation of Rs. 2 lakh is concerned, admittedly, petitioner has neither prayed for grant of compensation in his complaint nor in the details of the case filed along with complaint. No doubt petitioner has unnecessarily delayed grant of possession to the respondent but as no prayer was made for grant of compensation, learned District Forum could not have allowed compensation in the light of judgment of this Commission in First Appeal No. 263 of 2004 DDA Vs. Geeta Sahi, in which it was observed as under:--
This brings us to the correctness of the direction regarding payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. In the complaint the amount claimed was only Rs.10,000/-. On oral prayer allegedly made respondent during the course of argument the respondent could not have been awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. Award of compensation beyond Rs.10,000/- has, therefore, to be set aside.
7. In the light of aforesaid judgment, order allowing compensation of Rs. 2 lakh by the Fora below is liable to set aside and to this extent revision petition is to be allowed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 04-09-2014 passed by State Commission in First Appeal No. 1013/2013 DDA Vs. R.K. Bhilwaria is partly modified and order affirming grant of compensation of Rs. 2 lakh is set aside with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
....
(K. S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER aj