DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Ex. Case No.238/2013

Sh. Dinesh Chandra Sharma

S/o Late Sh. N. P. Sharma

30A UNA Enclave, Plot No.11

Mayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi-110091

                                                                             ….Complainant/DH

Versus

Delhi Development Authority

Through its Vice Chairman

Vikas Sadan INA, New Delhi                              ….Opposite Party/JD

Date of Institution       :     23.04.2013   Date of Order       :      15.01.2018

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

It appears that the JD DDA is now preparing for second round of litigation after taking the complaint case upto the Apex Court.

The Complainant DH filed the complaint case No. 226/10 against the OP JD on 08.05.08 (sic) for issuing directions to the OP JD to give allotment of the alternative flat and compensation of Rs.1 lac and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. OP JD contested the case. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.10 passed by our predecessors.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant DH  filed First Appeal No. 2010/705 before the Delhi State Commission who vide order dated 15.01.13 allowed the appeal and issued the following directions to the OP JD/Respondent:-

“… Respondent will return back all the amount of Rs.30,000/- hitherto received by it, and will provide the complainant another flat of the same description, on the same conditions in the same locality or nearby. In  case no flat is available, the respondent DDA will pay, the appellant Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lac) because of sky rocketing prices, and since the flat was booked for Rs.5,03,348/- in the year 1996-1997, Rs.24,96,652/- (Rs. Twenty Four Lac Ninety Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty Two only) as the escalated amount will be payable. Flat is to be allotted within 30 days, and if no flat is available, payment is also to be made within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.” 

(Emphasis supplied by us)

The OP/JD/DDA filed Revision Petition No.895/13 before the National Commission. Vide order dated 18.02.14 the National Commission dismissed the revision petition by imposing Rs.5 lacs as punitive damages upon the OP/ JD.

The SLP (C) No. 9335/14 (Civil Appeal No. 910/2016) filed by the OP/JD was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 05.02.16 but by setting-aside the requirement of the OP/JD depositing cost.

The OP/JD  thereafter issued demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.07.16 thereby allotting flat No. 648 (ground floor), Pocket 6, Sector B4,  GR P 2, Narela, Delhi to the Complainant DH by directing the Complainant DH to pay Rs.16,12,613/- towards the land cost, construction cost and other charges. 

To this, objection was taken by the DH that he is liable to pay only Rs.5,03,348/- as the original price of the flat to the JD instead of Rs.16,12,613/- as demanded in the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.07.16.

Copy of the original demand-cum-allotment letter has been placed on the record. The same is for the block date 12-1-2000 -20-1-2000 and is in respect of house No. 440, Type A 2 Pocket 6, Sector B4, Narela and a demand of Rs.5,03,848.75p has been made towards the cost price of the said flat.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties..

Arguments on behalf of the OP/ JD is that the question relating to the costing of the flat cannot be considered by this Forum and, therefore, the demand made vide demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.07.16 cannot be decided by this Forum. In support of this contention our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Delhi State Commission in FA No. 411/16 – Smt. Shakuntala Singh Vs. DDA decided on 30.09.16. 

Copies of judgments reported as DDA Vs. Kamini Chopra 1996 CPJ 285 (NC), DDA Vs. A. N. Saigal  I (1996) CPJ 34 (NC) are also placed on the file. In these decisions, it has been held that “Pricing cannot be a subject matter of consumer dispute.

This is a common case of the parties that the areas of the flats allotted vide original allotment letter and allotment letter dated 20.07.16 are similar. Therefore, now this is the question of the costing/pricing of the flat which has to be decided by this Forum.

We have very carefully gone through the decisions referred on behalf of the OP JD.

In those decisions, the question of costing/pricing of the flats had been raised during the pendency of the main complaints. Therefore,  in our considered opinion, in view of the order of the Delhi State Commission reproduced hereinabove, the ratio decidendi of those decisions does not apply to the present case which is infact  an execution application and not the main complaint. 

In view of the said order of the State Commission the OP JD has to allot another flat of the same description, on the same conditions in the same locality or nearby to the DH Complainant.  While passing the said order the Delhi State Commission has also taken a view that because of sky rocketing prices and since the flat was booked for Rs.5,03,348/- in the year 1996-1997, Rs.24,96,652/- must have become the escalated amount and accordingly it directed that in case no flat is available the OP/ JD shall pay Rs.30 lacs to the Complainant DH.

In view of the order passed by the Delhi State Commission we are of the considered opinion that now the OP/ JD is bound to ask the Complainant DH to pay Rs.5,03,348/- towards the costing of the flat to the OP JD  alongwith interest because the Complainant DH has also enjoyed the fruits of Rs.5,03,348/- for a period of more than 18 years. Therefore, the demand-cum- allotment letter dated 20.07.16 is illegal in the eyes of law.

 In view of the above discussion, we direct the OP/ JD/ DDA to issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter to the Complainant DH by taking into consideration the cost of the flat as 5,03,348/- and the OP JD shall be entitled to receive simple interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount w.e.f. 12.01.2000 till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and DH Complainant shall pay the above stated amount to OP/JD within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of revised demand-cum- allotment letter in lumpsum or in the manner otherwise directed by the OP/JD. The execution application stands disposed off accordingly.  File be consigned to record room.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 15.01.2018.