1.            The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 read with 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Mr. Dev Arora (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) against Opposite Parties, i.e., Opposite Party No. 1, Delhi Development Authority and Opposite Party No. 2, Deputy Director (Industrial), Delhi Development Authority, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “DDA”) alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Parties in not handing over the possession of the allotted Industrial Plot. 

2.            Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No. 1 is an Authority established under a Statute and has been constituted to develop infrastructure for the purpose of encouraging availability of affordable housing and developing of Industrial areas with developed plots to induce industrial growth. Complainant as a measure of self-employment, wanted to establish a Unit of its own in the State for which in the year 1976, he had applied for a fully developed Industrial Plot as per the scheme floated and advertised by the Opposite Parties. At the time of applying for the same, it was assured that in line with and commensurate with the inherent guiding policies of the DDA they would allot a fully developed plot wherein an industry could be established and run without any difficulty. 

3.            On 13.12.1976, Complainant deposited 30% of the total amount of Sale Consideration by two drafts bearing Nos. 725720 for ₹21,400/- and the other 663614 for ₹10,600/- both dated 29.11.1976 against which the Opposite Parties executed a receipt No. 209495 dated 13.12.1976. It is the case of the Complainant that he did not receive any allotment letter or possession of the Industrial Plot and is thus, suffering the loss of not being able to establish the Unit on the said allotted Industrial Plot.

4.            It is further the case of the Complainant that despite issuance of several letters, reminders and issuance of legal notices and personal visits to the office of the DDA, he was neither offered the allotment of the Industrial Plot nor the refund of 30% of the amount lying deposited towards the price of the Plot and was merely reassured that allotment letter and possession would be handed over soon.

5.            After repeated enquiries, the Complainant was told by the officials of the DDA that there were vacant and un-allotted Industrial Plots available with them and that the Complainant was required to deposit the Development Charges for the vacant Plot no. 93 and Plot No. 92, Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi. Accordingly, the Complainant immediately deposited the Development Charges vide Challan Nos. 52567 & 52568 both dated 15.02.2018, vide Demand Draft No. 003120 drawn on HDFC Bank and Demand Draft No. 506584 drawn on ICICI Bank both dated 14.02.2018, which were duly credited to the Central Bank of India Account of the DDA. However, no possession or regular letter of allotment was issued in favour of the Complainant for the said Plot No. 92 and 93, Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi.

6.            It is further the case of the Complainant that during this period, the DDA without considering the case of the Complainant, by adopting a pick and choose policy, allotted Industrial Plots to many other persons. However, despite the Plots lying vacant and un-allotted, the DDA deliberately withheld the allotment of the plots to the Complainant who was an eligible person.

7.            It was further submitted that the Complainant is still ready to settle the entire controversy by making payment of the remaining amount of 70% of the amount towards the price of the plot/plots at the current collector's rate/circle rate i.e. ₹64,680/- per square meter (30% already deposited) on allotment and handing over of the possession of the said plot nos. 92 & 93, Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. Further, the Complainants is ready to forego the claim of Interest on 30% of the amount already deposited with the DDA in the year 1976.

8.            Since, the physical possession of the allotted Industrial Plot/Plots  has not so far been handed over to the Complainant, alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the DDA, he has filed present Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:-

a)            Pass an Order directing allotment of the vacant and unallotted Plot no. 92 and Plot No. 93 situated in Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi each having an area of 300 square meters each and a total area of 600 sq. mtrs or any of the vacant and unallotted plot; and;

b)            Pass an order directing the respondents to accept the payment of the remaining 70% of the price of the Plot no. 92 and Plot No. 93 situated in Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi at the official/circle rate i.e.Rs. 64,680 per square meter which is prevailing as in the year 2020 in 10 half-yearly instalments within a period of five years as per norms after giving due adjustment to the development charges already paid; and;

c)            In the alternative to Pass an order directing payment/refund of the amount of Rs. 6,47,00,692.71 to the complainant being the entire amount deposited till date along with interest compounded annually @ 18% per annum; and

d)            Pass an order directing payment of pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum on the amount as claimed in prayer clause (a) hereinabove until payment or realization as the case maybe; and; and

e)            Pass an order directing payment of costs of the complaint; and

f)             Pass any order or directions that the Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to do complete justice.”

9.            Upon notice, the Opposite Party filed its Written Statement, inter alia, denying the entire contents of the Complaint and raising the Preliminary Objections that the Complaint filed in the year 2021 is liable to be dismissed as hopelessly time barred and for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is submitted that it is the Complainant's own case that he allegedly applied for the plot and deposited the 30 % sale consideration of ₹30000/- in the year 1976, however the present Complaint was being preferred after 44 years of the application and 25 years from Complainant’s last alleged correspondence. It is further contended that the Complainant had deposited the 30% sale consideration in year 1976 and therefore, the total sale price of the plot was ₹1,00,000/-, only therefore, this Commission would not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present case. It is also submitted that the Complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined under the Act, inasmuch as the subject plots are Industrial Plots and are for commercial and industrial usages. It is further submitted that the present complaint had been filed under the 1986 Act which is now repealed after coming into force the 2019 Act, and therefore, was liable to be rejected. It is urged that the documents and letters filed by the Complainant are not original copies but true typed copies and therefore, lacked authenticity and hence were required to be put to strict proof thereof.

10.          Complainant filed its Rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in his Complaint. With regards to the preliminary objections raised by the DDA in their reply, it has been submitted that the cause of action for the present Complaint arose on 15.02.2020 when the Complainant had deposited the Development Charges towards allotment of vacant and un-allotted plot No. 92 and Plot No. 93 situated in Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area Phase 2, New Delhi and as such the Complaint filed on 26.02.2020 is well within its limitation. Complainant has further submitted that he had applied for the Industrial Plots in question for his own self-employment and for earning his livelihood as such he is a Consumer.

11.          I have heard Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned Counsel for the Complainant, Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA and have given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties.

12.          So far as the preliminary objection raised by the DDA regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, it is evident from the record that the present Complaint was initially filed on 26.02.2020 but due to the defects pointed out by the Registry, the case was not given any number.  When the defects were removed, the case was given number as CC No. 78 of 2021.  The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force w.e.f. 20/24.07.2020 and the present Complaint was filed on 26.02.2020 under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Since the cost of the plot(s) and the compensation claimed exceeds more than ₹1 Crore, in terms of the larger Bench decision of this Commission in the case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., - Consumer Complaint No. 97 of 2016 decided on 07.10.2016, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint. 

13.          The next contention of the DDA that the present Complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation does not hold any water. There is no doubt that the Complainant has applied for the plot in the year 1976 and he paid 30% of the total Sales Consideration to the DDA in the year 1976.  Thereafter, the Complainant has repeatedly requested the DDA by writing letters, legal notice and personal visit to hand over the physical possession of the allotted plot but the DDA has failed to discharge the said duty. The Complainant was always ready to pay the balance amount for the plot. In the year 2018, Complainant came to know from the officials of the DDA that vacant Plot Nos. 92 and 93, Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase II, Delhi are available for alternative allotment subject to payment of Development Charges.  The Complainant immediately deposited the Development Charges on 15.02.2018 which were credited to the Central Bank of India Account of the DDA. But still the DDA did not bother to even give physical possession of the Plot No.92 and 93 , Mangolpuri, Delhi to the Complainant.  Even if we count the limitation period of filing the Complaint under the Act from 15.02.2018, the Complaint is almost within the period of limitation of two years. Moreover, in catena of the judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission has held that in the cases where possession of the allotted plot/flat has not been handed over to the Complainant there is always a recurring cause of action. Hence, this contention is also rejected.

14.          With regard to the plea taken by the DDA that the Complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined under the Act since it had purchased the Plots for setting up industry, does not have leg to stand. Firstly, the Industrial Plot was purchased by the Complainant in the year 1976 when even the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was not into existence. Further, by the amendment 62 of 2002, the explanation with regard to “Commercial Purpose” came into existence w.e.f. 15.03.2003.  For the sake of argument, even if I presume that the Complainant is now praying of allotment of Plot No.92 and 93, Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase II, Delhi which are the industrial plot and for which the Complainant had deposited development charges in the year 2018, the argument of the DDA that the Complainant is not a consumer has no relevance. In para No.2 of the Complaint, the Complainant has specifically stated that he wanted to establish a unit of its own for self-employment in the State and he accordingly applied for a fully developed industrial Plot. There is no specific denial to this submission by the DDA in its Written Statement. This apart, from the correspondence produced on record, it can be safely presumed that the Complainant was going to establish a small scale industry on the plot.  Hence, the said contention is rejected.

15.          Now, adverting to the merit of the case, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant has applied for an Industrial Plot with the DDA to set up his factory for earning livelihood in the year 1976 and he paid the 30% of the total Sales Consideration. Despite repeated efforts made by the Complainant by writing various letters, legal notice as well as personal visits to the officials of the DDA, the physical possession of the Plot in question was not handed over to him. In the year 2018, he deposited the development charges for the allotment of Industrial Plot Nos. 92 and 93, Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase II, Delhi but the Complainant was required to run from pillar to post to get the physical possession of these plots. Still today he is waiting for physical possession. It is not the case of the DDA that at any stage they have offered any alternative plot to the Complainant or offered to refund the deposited amount with interest to him. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Complainant is entitled for physical possession of the Plot No.92 & 93 in Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi.

16.          Learned Counsel for the Complainant has placed strong reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Sharma Vs. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.,- Civil Appeal No (s).52-53 of 2016 decided on  07.01.2016; Pratap Singh Yadav Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr., Civil Appeal No (s).10418-10419 of 2016 decided on  28.10.2016, and Ajay Mittal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr., Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 33890-33891/2016 decided on 07.12.2018, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the similar circumstances had directed the HUDA to allot an alternative plot to the Complainant.

17.          In the case of Pradeep Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case has passed directed as under:-

“12. The impugned orders passed by the National Commission are set aside and these appeals are allowed. Respondent-authority/HUDA shall permit the appellant to retain the plot subject to the appellant’s depositing the amount at the current HUDA rate of the year 2014-15 i.e. Rs.10,500/- per sq. mtr. after adjusting the amount already deposited by the appellant. The appellant shall deposit the said amount within four months from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, HUDA shall execute the necessary document and issue no objection certificate and clearances as may be required within four weeks thereafter. It is further directed that the respondent-authority shall proceed against the delinquent officials/officers who are responsible for the lapses in accordance with law. In so far as action taken in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent authority shall file compliance report before this Court within nine months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.”

18.          In another case of Pratap Singh Yadav (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“8.   We accordingly allow these appeals but only in part and to the extent indicated above and set aside the order passed by the National Commission and the State Commission with the direction that subject to the appellant depositing the price of the plot at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per square meters within a period of six months from today the appellant shall be permitted to retain the plot. In case the needful is not done within the time allowed, this appeal shall stand dismissed and order passed by National Commission and the State Commission affirmed. In any such event  HUDA shall be free to dispossess the appellant from the property and resume the possession of the plot along with the superstructure, in case the superstructure is not removed by the appellants within the time granted by HUDA for that purpose.

9. Ordered accordingly. No costs.”

19.          In the case of Ajay Mittal (Supra), it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-

“      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

An affidavit has been filed by Mr. Amardeep Jain, Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority. The affidavit is dated 17th April, 2018.

It is stated in the affidavit that possession of the plot in question was handed over to the petitioner on 28th March, 2008 and the allotment rate at that time was Rs.6,200 per sq. m. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he is ready and willing to make the payment at the allotment rate of Rs.6,200 per sq. m. after adjusting any amount that has already been paid.

We direct accordingly.

The balance amount be paid within a period of four weeks from today.

The special leave petitions stand disposed of in view of the above.”

20.          Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, which also applies to the facts of the present case and for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the Complaint deserves to be allowed partly with the following directions:-

(i)    The DDA shall allot the vacant and unallotted Plot Nos. 92 and Plot No.93 situated at Block B, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi to the Complainant and shall hand over the physical possession of the Plots within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(ii)           Since, the Complainant is ready and willing to pay balance amount of Sale Consideration at Circle/Official rate i.e. ₹64,680/- per square meter, the DDA is directed to allot the aforesaid plots at the said rate.

(iii)  The Complainant is directed to pay the balance sale consideration after adjustment of the amount already paid to the Opposite Party/DDA in 10 equal half yearly installments in a total period of five years.

21.          The complaint is disposed of in above terms. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.