State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Col. A.P. Sharma on 14 November, 2006
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 : 14.11.2006 Appeal No.A-357/2006 (Arising from impugned order dated 05.12.2005 passed by District Forum-II, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in complaint Case No.24/2003) Delhi Development Authority Appellant. INA, New Delhi through Mrs. Neera advocate Versus Co. A.P. Sharma Respondent Tilak Electrostate, Sharma Market through counsel Mithai Road, Sector 27, Noida 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 (Oral)
1. Since the counsel for the respondent has appeared on his own and argued the matter, the appeal is being decided on merit.
2. Vide impugned order dated 05.12.2005, District Forum directed the appellant to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation
3. Relevant facts for our purpose, in brief, are that vide demand-cum-allocation letter dated 26.11.90-30.11.90, the respondent was allocated by the appellant a third category flat in Pocket 6 & 7 in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi at an estimated cost of Rs.5,01,700/-. 90% of this cost was to be paid in 4 installments as detailed in the letter(Annexure D). The respondent paid these installments and also submitted copy of the FDR, surrender slip etc. Thereafter the respondent did not receive the demand for final payment and there are series of correspondence between the appellant and the respondent. Ultimately, the respondent received a letter dated 13.11.96 from the appellant alongwith the final demand letter dated 13.11.96. In the said letter, it was mentioned that the demand letter sent earlier on 5.7.96 was received back with the remarks that the addressee was not living at the given address. Vide this final demand letter the respondent was asked to pay the net amount of Rs.4,01,288/- as on 5.9.96. The respondent paid the demanded amount and also paid the interest of Rs.9255/- on 8.1.97. Conveyance Deed and other documents were also submitted by the respondent to the appellant on 10.6.97. Respondent completed the formalities on 10.6.97. However, the appellant failed to deliver the possession of the flat to the respondent and rather issued a fresh demand letter dated 25.5.98 for the 5th and final instalment asking the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.6,82,170/- on or before 25.11.98. The respondent sent representations to the appellant but in vain and he ultimately filed a Writ Petition No.5855/98 on 6.11.98 in the Honble High Court of Delhi and the High Court vide order dated 11.7.2002 quashed this demand and directed the appellant to hand over the possession of the flat in question to the respondent within 15 days of the order and only thereafter the respondent received the possession of the flat in July, 2002.
4. The only objection raised by the appellant is that complainant was barred under order 2 rule 2 CPC because the relief of compensation for delayed possession was available to the respondent when he filed the writ petition in the High Court but he did not ask for the same. However, this objection was repelled by the District Forum and accordingly, vide order dated 05.12.2005, directed the appellant to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. The very fact that 5th and final demand raised by the appellant was quashed by the High Court shows the grossest kind of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. However, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it was the second allotment which was quashed by the High Court and not the 5th and final installment is wholly devoid of merit as alongwith quashing the 5th and final demand letter, the 5th installment was also quashed.
6. Remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an independent proceedings and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. When there is deficiency in service on the part of service provider and the consumer has suffered any loss or injury that includes mental injury, agony and harassment, consumer is entitled to an amount as compensation in terms of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.
7. This Commission in case after case has impressed upon the appellant to set their record straight by way of verifying from the challans of payment, copy of which is available with the State Bank of India, in case the third copy is lost by the consumer or is not available.
8. The District Forum, however, by way of compensation has awarded interest @15%p.a. on the sum of Rs.8,71,179/- received and retained by the appellant for a period of five years. In our view, interest awarded by the District Forum is on the higher side as the Supreme Court in case after case has held that interest by way of compensation should neither be too high nor too low. Since u/s 34 of the CPC, Civil Court is empowered to award interest by way of equity at the rate at which the monies are lent and borrowed by the Nationalised Banks, we deem that interest @9% would meet the ends of justice. Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest to 9% and maintain the rest of the order.
9. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith under proper receipt.
10. 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 the Record Room.
(Justice J.D.Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member slc