2.      The Delhi Development Authority has thus complied with the impugned order. However, it has not appealed against it. Therefore, the impugned order has acquired finality vis-vis the respondent/DDA. The consideration of the present appeal is accordingly limited to the question whether the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned order is adequate or not.

3.      The appeal has been filed with a delay of 49 days. The explanation given in the application for condonation of delay has been considered. We also note that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant could not have gained in any manner, from this delay. It is therefore, condoned.

4.      The facts in very brief, are that the complainant Col Sharma had applied for allotment of a flat under the self financing scheme (SFS) in 1982. The respondent/DDA informed in 1984 that he had been found eligible for allotment of a flat in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The DDA gave the complainant a payment schedule for a total sum of Rs 2,55,000 including Rs 15,000 already deposited by him. The complainant remitted the entire amount, with the last installment of Rs 26,000 being paid by a bank draft of 16.12.1986. After waiting for one year, he made enquiries and learnt from the office of the DDA that the flats have already been allotted to other applicants. His case was not considered as he had failed to pay Rs 26,000 within the stipulated time.

5.      On further follow up by the complainant, the respondent/DDA eventually allotted a flat in Vasant Kunj and its possession was given to him on 21.3.1993. Three months later, the complainant gave a legal notice to the respondent seeking interest of 18% on the amount of Rs 2,34,525 from 1984 till 1993 and refund of Rs 3,78,569, subsequently deposited by him, for obtaining possession of the flat. Having failed to get the desired response from the respondent, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Delhi State Commission in November 1993.

6.      The response of the DDA before the State Commission was that the SFS scheme is meant for providing flats to the applicants on cost basis, without charging any profit, whatsoever. The complainant, it is alleged, has not come with clean hands. He did not deposit the last installment within the stipulated time limit. It was deposited after the due date. It was pointed out on behalf of the DDA that the last installment was payable by 16.2.1986 but it was paid on 13.1.1987 i.e. with a delay of 11 months. Therefore, in terms of the conditions communicated in the demand letter of 16.7.1984, the allotment stood automatically cancelled. It was however, admitted by the respondent/DDA that the letter of 4.2.1987, confirming the allotment of a flat to the complainant, was issued ‘inadvertently and without linking up the proof of payment made by the complainant’. But, subsequently, due to the availability of a flat for the complainant, a letter was issued to him on 19.2.1990 offering one.

7.      The case of the respondent is that the complainant cannot take any benefit from his own wrong committed in breach of the terms and conditions of allotment caused by failure to pay the fourth installment within the prescribed time limit. It is admitted in the complaint petition that the last installment of Rs.26,000 reached the DDA on 9.1.1987. A receipt was also issued to the complainant for this amount on 9.1.1987. As for the final price charged, it is claimed that the same has been worked out in accordance with the approved pricing policy based on no profit no loss principle. Nothing extra has been charged in his case, as compared to similar other allottees.

8.      The ground for challenge to the impugned order is that the State Commission, after arriving at a finding of deficiency on the part of the DDA, has failed to provide the relief claimed by the Complainant.    It is evident from the order of the State Commission that it has held the DDA responsible for deficiency in service, to the extent that money was received by it during 1982-86 period while the flat was allotted much later in 1993. One option would have been for the State Commission to award interest at a specific rate. However, acknowledging that in terms of the agreement between the parties, the DDA does not have any liability to pay interest, the State Commission awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 

9.      We find from the appeal memorandum that the Complainant was very much aware that the price of Rs.2,55,000/-, which he was required to pay within 16.12.1986, was in fact the estimated cost of the flat and not the final price. The final price was communicated to him in DDA’s letter of 13.7.1992. In para 2 of this letter, it is clearly mentioned as Rs.5,73,400/-. Therefore, the question of refund of the balance payable amount of Rs.3,78,596/- as claimed by the Complainant, does not arise. Similarly, his claim for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on the ground of mental agony and torture has no justification. The Complainant had admitted that there was a delay of some months ( eleven, to be precise) in payment of the last installment by him. Non-consideration for allotment, in the background of his failure to fulfill the obligation to pay all installments in time, cannot be the cause for any mental agony or torture for which monetary compensation can be justified.   The fact that a formal letter from the DDA on 4.2.1987 was issued to him, confirming the allotment, cannot undo the lapse of the delayed payment of the last installment.           

10.    We would however, like to observe that in the final amount charged as per the DDA letter of 13.7.1992, an amount of Rs.36529.60 is shown to have been charged for delay in payment of installments. The position taken by the respondent/DDA was that only the last installment of Rs. 26,000/- was paid with a delay of 11 months. DDA has not pointed out any delay of payment in other installments by the Complainant. In such a case, the amount charged for the delay turns out to be highly disproportionate, both in relation to the amount of money and period of delay. Taking this into account, we feel that it will be just and proper to enhance the quantum of lump sum compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.80,000/-.

11.    In view of the consideration above, the appeal of Col. A.K. Sharma is partially allowed. The amount of lump sum compensation is enhanced from Rs.50,000/-  (already received by the Complainant) to Rs.80,000/-. This enhancement in compensation by Rs.30,000/- shall be paid by the DDA within one month.  No orders as to costs.