NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3776 OF 2008
(From the order dated 18.01.2008 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. A-169 of 2006)
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA Petitioner
New Delhi
Versus
Mr. Rajendra Singh
Son of Late Balbir Singh
Resident of A – 58, Amrit Nagar Respondent
New Delhi
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA MEMBER
For the Petitioner Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate
For the Respondent Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, Advocate
Pronounced on 20th July, 2012
ORDER
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
This revision petition challenges the order dated 18.01.2008 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 169 of 2006. By this order, the State Commission set aside the order dated 14.12.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, New Delhi (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in complaint case no. 1590 of 2003 filed by the respondent in this revision petition and directed the petitioner/Delhi Development Authority – DDA to pay to the respondent interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,96,863/- deposited by the latter for the period 30.03.202 to 04.09.2002.
2 This case has had a chequered history.
(i) The respondent/complainant registered himself for allotment of a middle income group (MIG) flat under a scheme called New Pattern Registration Scheme - NPRS 1979 floated by the DDA. Flat no. 153, Ground Floor, Mayur Vihar was allotted to the respondent on out-of-turn basis on 05.03.1993 and the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent by the DDA on 31.05.1993. The said letter required the respondent to pay Rs.4,33,915/- within 30 days failing which the allotment was liable to be cancelled automatically. Instead of paying the amount, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum challenging the pricing of the flat. The complaint was dismissed by the Forum by its order dated 18.02.1999. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission praying for directions to the DDA not to charge interest. By its order dated 17.06.1998, the MRTP Commission held that the application was not maintainable in view of the order dated 03.02.1995 of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in a batch of writ petition (Sheelawanti and Others. v DDA and Another) concerning pricing/costing of flats, including escalation in the cost, constructed by the DDA. The MRTP Commission also noted that the appeal filed against the aforesaid order of the Delhi High Court by way of special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
(ii) Thereafter, the respondent filed a review application before the MRTP Commission which was dismissed by that Commission by its order dated 18.02.1999. This was followed by a modification application by the respondent before the MRTP Commission which too was dismissed by that Commission under its order dated 27.08.1998 with, however, liberty to the respondent to approach the DDA for relief as was permitted by the Delhi High Court in its order dated 03.02.1995.
(iii) The respondent wrote to the DDA by his letter dated 10.09.1999 for similar relief and issuance of a fresh demand letter. By its letter dated 07.01.2000, the DDA replied to the respondent that the allotment in favour of his flat had been restored subject to payment of interest and usual charges. The respondent wrote back to the DDA, protesting against the DDA’s claim and stating that the allotment had never been cancelled and also requesting that he be allowed to deposit the amount according to the demand letter dated 31.05.1993. By its letter dated 09.02.2000, the DDA rejected the respondent’s request and directed him to deposit the amount mentioned in the DDA’s demand letter dated 31.05.1993 along with interest and restoration charges within 15 days. Thereupon, the respondent deposited Rs.4,33,916/- on 30.03.2000, which was the amount that the DDA had demanded in its allotment-cum-demand letter dated 31.05.1993. In other words, the respondent did not pay either interest or restoration charges as demanded by the DDA in its letter dated 09.02.2000 and paid even the bare principal amount after a delay of over a month.
(iv) The respondent then approached the Lok Adalat against the DDA on 07.01.2002 for waiver of the restoration charges. By its order dated 11.06.2002, the Lok Adalat waived Rs.5,000/- towards restoration charges. Consequently, by its letter dated 04.09.2002, the DDA revised its demand to Rs.3,96,863/- (i.e., only interest) and directed the respondent to deposit that amount within 30 days.
(v) Against this demand, the respondent filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court on 30.09.2002. In its order dated 07.10.2002 the High Court observed as under:
“There can be no doubt that in view of the petitioner having exhausted his remedies before different forums, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned letter cannot be entertained. Learned senior counsel does not seriously dispute this position but claims that the petitioner is a handicapped person and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case some discretion should be shown for the benefit of the petitioner. Learned counsel confines his relief to grant of some time to make the payment in pursuance to the impugned order in view of the fact that the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting his remedies in different forums.
Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to accept the aforesaid plea of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. In view thereof it is directed that in case the petitioner deposits the amount as demanded in terms of the letter dated 04.09.2002 within three months, the petitioner will be handed over the possession of the flat in question subject to the petitioner complying with other formalities. However, in case the petitioner still fails to deposit the amount it will be open to the respondents to take action in accordance with terms and conditions of the allotment as stated in the letter dated 04.09.2002.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.”
[Emphasis supplied]
(vi) Still, after a delay of over eight months since the time allowed by the High Court, the respondent deposited with DDA a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 22.09.203 and the balance Rs.2,46,863/- on 07.10.2003. Thus, though the respondent failed to comply with the directions of the High Court to make payment within three months from the date of the High Court’s order, the DDA issued to him possession letter on 13.01.2004.
(vii) However, even before that, i.e., on 20.12.2003 (within approximately 10 weeks of making the second instalment of payment to the DDA), the respondent filed the complaint in question before the District Forum seeking payment of interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of Rs.4,33,916/- from 30.03.2000 to 04.09.2002.
(viii) The District Forum dismissed this complaint, by its order dated 14.12.2005, whereupon the respondent/complainant filed appeal before the State Commission. This appeal was allowed by the State Commission by its order dated 18.01.2008 which is impugned in this petition.
(ix) On 12.08.2008, the respondent filed an execution application before the District Forum for recovery of Rs.95,684.37 that he claimed as interest, as per the State Commission’s impugned order. On 01.01.2008, the District Forum issued recovery certificate in favour of the respondent and on 25.09.2008, the DDA filed this revision petition which is now before us.
3. We have heard Ms. Girija Wadhwa, learned counsel for the petitioner/DDA and Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant as well as the respondent/complainant in person and gone through the records carefully.
4. The revision petition has been filed with a delay of 132 days. An application for condonation of this delay has also been filed to which the respondent has raised objections. However, for the reasons recorded in this application, the delay is condoned, subject to the petitioner/DDA depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
5. During the hearing before us, learned counsel for the respondent was given opportunity to file a copy of his letter dated 10.09.1999 on which much reliance was attempted to be placed by the learned counsel in support of the respondent’s contentions. However, till the date of final hearing, a copy of this letter was not produced.
6. In dismissing the complaint, the District Forum had passed a well reasoned order, by observing as under:
“Vide the allotment-cum-demand letter dated 31.05.1993 the complainant was asked by the OP to pay Rs.4,33,915.50 within 60 days.There was automatic cancellation after 90 days. However, instead of making the payments the complainant challenged the pricing of the flat before the Hon’ble MRTP Commission and made this payment only on 30.03.2000 when the Hon’ble Commission did not grant any relief to the complainant vide order dated 17.06.1998. This payment was without interest and ultimately the complainant had to pay the interest for the late payment of the cost of the flat and that too after the Hon’ble High Court refused to grant any relief on account of interest. The complainant himself became instrumental to the delay in delivery of possession and the OP was not obliged to deliver the possession of the flat to the complainant on 07.01.2000 or 30.03.2000 when he completed the payment of the original cost of the flat because the complainant was also liable to pay interest on the delayed payment which was to be paid within 60 days of 31.05.1993 when the letter of allotment was issued. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost”.
7. As against that order, the aforesaid detailed narration of facts would suffice in demonstrating the complete lack of application and proper appreciation of facts and circumstances by the State Commission in passing the impugned order.
8. As the facts clearly show, it was, in fact, an act of special consideration on the part of the petitioner/DDA to have issued possession letter to the respondent on 31.01.2004 and executed the conveyance deed on 05.04.2004, though the respondent had failed to comply with the directions of the Delhi High Court to deposit the entire amount demanded by the DDA under its letter dated 04.09.2002 within three months of the date of the High Court’s order dated 07.10.2002. The DDA could have, because of this delay in payment by the respondent, cancelled the allotment, as explicitly stated in the letter of 04.09.2002 and permitted by the High Court. Even the dispensation granted by the Delhi High Court in its aforesaid order was by way of special consideration, based on specific prayer by the Counsel for the respondent before the High Court, as is clearly noted in the High Court’s order excerpted above.
9. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in allowing the revision petition and setting aside the impugned order of the State Commission. We order accordingly.
10. We may also notice that the acts of the respondent/complainant since the Delhi High Court’s order dated 07.10.2002 are nothing but deliberate and calculated abuse of the beneficial provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’). It is unfortunate that the State Commission failed to discern the glaring facts and committed the serious error of allowing the appeal, perhaps in a bout of misplaced enthusiasm to do well by any and all “consumer”. Such practices need to be curbed with a heavy hand. Accordingly (and by virtue of the provisions of section 26 of the Act), we direct the respondent/complainant to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within four weeks from the date of this order.
Sd/-
..………………………………
[V. B. Gupta, J]
Sd/-
………………………………..
[Anupam Dasgupta]
satish
