This appeal is filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), challenging the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in a Consumer Complaint filed by Ms Sujata Das. 2. The case of the Complainant, as seen from the records before this Commission, is that she had been allotted a flat in Vasant Kunj in 1989. The background for this out-of-turn allotment is that the husband of the Complainant Shri Sital Das was killed while working as Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, along with two other Police officers working with him. His wife, the Complainant, is an IAS officer of Punjab cadre. Therefore, a request was made by the then Governor of Punjab Shri S.S. Ray to the then Lieutenant Governor Shri Romesh Bhandari, to allot a three bed room DDA flat to the Complainant. Accordingly, a letter of allotment was issued in her favour on 12.4.1989. 3. In this letter, signed by the Assistant Director (SFS) DDA, the estimated cost of the flat was shown to be Rs.3,49,200/- excluding out of turn charges plus interest of Rs.11325/-. The total cost was payable in four installments from 15.1.1988 to 15.2.1990. The last part of the letter also carried the following clarification:- “The 5th and final instalment will be of 10% of the estimated cost plus difference between the cost of the flat on completion and the estimated cost mentioned in para 2 or above which will be intimated to you in due course.” 4. It was therefore, clear that the cost of Rs 349200 was provisional (called “estimated”) and not final cost. In the letter of 10.8.1994 from DDA, the Complainant was informed that the final cost of the flat would be Rs.1165545/-. Apparently, this was modified to Rs.689300 in the DDA letter of 15.12.1994. 5. Thereafter in 1995, the Complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the State Commission Delhi with the following prayers:- “a) The cost of the flat should be limited to the amount originally indicated in the DDA letter of 12.4.1989. b) Excess amount charged should be refunded. c) other charges levied towards restoration, late induction and interest should be refunded. d) Compensation of Rs.50,000/- should be awarded for mental agony suffered by the Complainant.” 6. The State Commission has gone into the details of the four installments with reference to the dates they were payable and the dates on which they were actually paid by the Complainant. As observed by the State Commission, the first installment was paid on 11.5.1989 and the fourth on 2.7.1993. The complainant was given possession of the flat on 29.5.1995. The State Commission has also referred to a further reduction by the DDA in the final cost on 4.4.1995 and refund of Rs.107622/- to the Complainant on 26.6.1995. 7. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the prayer of the Complainant seeking to limit the cost of the flat to the estimated cost, thereof as shown in the original letter of allocation dated 12.04.1989, could not be accepted as the pricing of the flat is prerogative of the OP (DDA). The State Commission however, took note of the sequence of events as evidence of harassment of the Complainant in getting condonation of delay in payment of the installments, despite orders of the Vice-Chairman DDA and raising of demand towards late induction charge and interest on pre 1989 installment etc. The State Commission therefore, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 8. We have perused the records, heard the Complainant as well as the counsel for the Appellant/Delhi Development Authority. It was argued on behalf of the DDA that it was a case of compassionate allotment and therefore the Complainant is not a consumer. We do not agree with this argument as the compassionate part only related to considering the complainant for an out of turn allotment. Apart from this, like any other allottee, the Complainant has received the possession of the flat only after paying the requisite consideration/cost to the DDA. The details of the same have been brought out in the impugned order. Therefore, the complainant is as much a consumer of the appellant/DDA as any other allottee of a flat. 9. The next argument put forth before us that pricing is not an issue to be decided by the consumer fora. From the discussion of the impugned order detailed above, it is clear that the State Commission has refused to consider the prayer for reduction of the cost of the flat on the ground that pricing is a matter within the domain of the OP/DDA. Therefore, there is no further need or occasion to consider this argument now advanced on behalf of the DDA. 10. The Respondent/Complainant argued the case personally with details of the manner in which the matter moved from stage to stage and office to office and the resultant delay and harassment caused in the process. The Complainant therefore, argued that refund of Rs.108622/- could not adequately compensate her for the same. The State Commission order has considered this, while determining the amount of compensation, together with the question of wrong recovery of late induction charge, interest on first installment prior to the date of allotment itself and restoration charge. This has rightly been considered a deficiency in service for which a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the complainant. We do not consider the award either excessive or unjustified. 11. For the reasons detailed above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is therefore dismissed and the order of the State Commission, Delhi in CC No. C-197/1995 is confirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs. | 
