1. This Revision Petition assails order dated 13.07.2017 in First Appeal No.627 of 2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short ‘the State Commission’) arising out of the order dated 26.07.2011 in complaint No.600 of 2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Delhi at New Delhi (in short, ‘the District Forum’) relating to the allotment of L.I.G. Flat to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner submits that he had applied for a L.I.G. Flat by registering under the relevant scheme by depositing Rs.1500/- with him in 1979. While he had not been intimated of the outcome of the application, based on a notice dated 15.02.1995 from the office of the Income Tax department, he learnt that he had been allotted an LIG Flat No.75, A-1, Sector-16, Rohini at a cost of Rs.3,10,000/-. He approached the respondent on 27.03.1995, but was informed on 18.11.1998 that his request for allotment of the said flat could not be acceded in view of the lapse of time and allotment of another flat in the next draw was assured. He pursued the request including sending of legal notice dated 24.05.2006, and also sought information under the RTI Act on 10.05.2007. 2. The Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum which was decided in his favour on contest and the opposite party was directed to either allot him an alternative flat at the same price in a similar locality or to put his name in the next draw as per the choice of the complainant. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses were also awarded. In appeal, the State Commission set-aside this order partly and vide the impugned order, it was directed that the directions to allot a flat at the old price by the District Forum be set-aside and the petitioner be given an opportunity to take a new flat as per the allotment made in December 2012, within one month, failing which he would be entitled to the refund of the booking amount of Rs.1500/- with interest at 7% per annum, from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Payment of cost of litigation awarded was set-aside. This order is impugned before us on the grounds that the petitioner has been put to loss due to the actions of the respondent in wrongly sending the demand-cum-allotment letter to him at the incorrect address of 106-D Kamla Nagar, Delhi, since he had not changed his address at any point of time. The finding of the State Commission in the impugned order that the petitioner had been enjoying the money and had not deposited it with the respondent after the draw of lots for allotment is contested by the petitioner on the ground that there was no lapse or fraud on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, he could be held accountable for not depositing of the money in 1993. He, therefore, prays that he be allotted a flat at the old rate. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner’s application of 1979 was considered by way of a draw of lots and a LIG flat was allotted to him. It is also admitted by the respondent that the allotment letter was missent to a wrong address. Under its Wrong Address Policy (WAP), therefore, the respondent allotted another flat to the petitoner on 11.01.2012 and offered him flat No.1405, Pocket-GH 1, Sector-28, Rohini. However, the price of this flat was fixed as Rs.17,00,074/- as per the prevailing price. However, the petitioner did not accept the same on the plea that he is entitled to a flat at the old price. The only issue in this case, therefore, is whether the complainant is entitled to get the flat at the original price or the price prevailing at the time of subsequent allotment. 4. The State Commission in its order has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in DDA Vs. A.N. Sehgal, 1 (1996) CPJ 34, wherein, following its earlier decision in Gujarat Housing Board Vs. Amrit Lal Phool Chand, IV (1993) CPJ 351 it was held that the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer Fora since the price of the flat is not fixed by any law and that even after any excess charge has been collected by way of price, it would not constitute a ground for contending that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Reliance is also based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DDA Vs. Pushpender Kumar, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1 which held that no indefeasible right is conferred on a person by mere draw of lots unless he makes the payment. The State Commission held that since the complainant did not make any payment in 1993, he was not entitled to the flat at the old rate. 5. The petitioner has argued that since the intimation of the flat has not been given to him, there was no opportunity to deposit the money and that he is now being put to loss on the ground that he did not deposit the money in 1993 which would have appreciated several times over. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The respondent has complied with the directions of the District Forum to reconsider the petitioner’s case for allotment of another flat. However, the State Commission has held that in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission, the respondent is restrained from offering the flat at the rate of prevailing in 1993 and that the prevailing rate as on the date of the subsequent allotment needs to be paid by the petitioner. In view of this legal position, the order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. However, it is also a fact that petitioner has indeed suffered at the hands of the respondent in the allotment of flat which could not be accepted and utilised by him. Therefore, the order of the State Commission setting aside the compensation and the litigation cost imposed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. It is a fact that the petitioner has pursued his case diligently for the past several decades and, therefore needs to be compensated. 7. The order of the State Commission directing the petitioner to take possession of the flat by making the payment within a period of one month is considered to be unreasonable since a person who is required to pay almost 6 times the original price of the flat for a Lower Income Group flat would certainly require some reasonable period of time to mobilise resources for the same. 8. In view of the foregoing and the facts and circumstances of this case, the revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions:- - The order of the State Commission in directing the petitioner to take possession of Flat No.1405 Pocket-GH 1, Sector-28 Rohini, within a period of one month is confirmed with the modification that the petitioner be granted a period of three months from the date of this order to take possession of the same to deposit Rs.17,00,074/- with the respondent.
- Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum is also restored.
All pending I.As., if any, shall stand disposed of with this order. |
