State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aruna Khandelwal vs Delhi Development Authority on 27 July, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 27.07.2011 Appeal No. FA-10/786 (Arising out of Order dated 15.9.10 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Case No. 1021/96) Smt. Aruna Khandelwal Appellant W/o Late Sh. J.K. Khandelwal, SFS Flat B-4, Pocket-B, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-1, New Delhi-110017. Versus Delhi Development Authority Respondent Vikas Sadan, Near INA Market, New Delhi. CORAM: Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Mrs. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi (Oral)
1. The facts of the case are that one Shri J.K. Khandelwal, husband of the complainant was allotted SFS Flat No. 8773, Sector-8, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 21.1.84 by Delhi Development Authority. On 10.6.86, Shri Khandelwal died. The complainant lady with the help of her brother-in-law made various enquiries with regard to the mutation, and paid the amount demanded by the OP towards the consideration of the flat by 9.8.88. The complainant thereafter made several requests to OP for handing over the possession, and also for the possession. It was ultimately delivered to her on 8.7.94, and the actual possession was handed over to her in November 1994. The complainants grouse in the complaint is that the OP DDA kept the amount of consideration of Rs. 2,41,847.55 from 9.8.88, while she delivered actual possession in the month of November 1994, and the possession letter on 27.12.91. She thereafter filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, praying that OP be directed to pay her interest on the said amount from 9.8.88 to 8.7.94 @ 18% for this period, and also the compensation. The OP opposed the claim and filed the written statement alleging that the complainant paid the amount of consideration according to the terms and conditions of the demand-cum-allotment letter, and thereafter the formalities were fulfilled by the complainant, and the possession letter was given to her on 8.7.94. The husband of the complainant dies and on the request of the complainant, mutation of the flat was done in her favour. On receipt of the letter of the complainant on 16.8.90 for delivery of the possession, the complainant was asked on 29.10.90 to complete the formalities and to produce the No Objection Certificate, which the complainant had deposited on 8.11.91, and soon thereafter, she was delivered the possession of the flat in question. The OP thus denied any deficiency on its part, and liability to pay any interest or any compensation. The District Consumer Forum on consideration of evidence of both the parties held that the OP was negligent in delivering the possession of the flat to the complainant within a reasonable time, and for that, decreeded the claim of the complainant, directing the OP to pay interest from 9.8.88 to 8.7.94 @ 12% p.a. on an amount of Rs. 2,41,847.55 and Rs. 25,000/- towards the compensation. Aggrieved by this amount of compensation, which according to the complainant/appellant is not adequate, she has come in appeal before this Commission.
2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Prasad, counsel for appellant and Ms. Madhumita Bhattarcharya, counsel for respondent in this appeal.
3. The first contention of the counsel for appellant is with regard to the rate of interest. He says that the complainant should have taken the interest @ 12% as claimed by her in her complaint. On query from the counsel that how will he justify 18% rate of interest, his contention is that, in case of default of any instalment, the OP charges 18% rate of interest and toeing the same line, the complainant deserves interest @ 18%. We are not inclined with the contention of the counsel. This rate of interest cannot be applied vice versa, and there is no such rule for it. 12% rate of interest is quite adequate and proper. The contention of the counsel for the appellant in this behalf is therefore devoid of any substance.
4. The next and the last contention of the counsel for the appellant is that amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded to the complainant is on the lower side.
5. Consumer Courts are snot a profit industry for litigant seeking damages. The quantum of damages as to the commensurate with the loss of agony suffered by the consumer. We do not subscribe to the view that the compensation awarded by the District Consumer Forum is on the lower side. It is true, and we will concede with the question of determination of compensation for mental harassment is a tricky one and some element of personal predilection inevitably gets involved but the principle is that an assessment made by a Forum need not be disturbed unless the award is outrageously minimal. We therefore seem no sufficient reason to order enhancement.
6. Appeal dismissed.
7. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
8. 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.
9. Announced on 27th day of July, 2011.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member ysc