ORDER (ORAL) Learned Counsel for the Complainants/Respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted that the address of the Complainants has now changed and it is now as under: -2- - Smriti Razdan
W/o Shri Sachin Khashu - Shri Sachin Khashu
S/o Shri Rattan Lal Khashu Both Residents of C/o Sh. Bhushan Lal Razdan, Flat No.1053, ATS Prelude Derabassi, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab 140507 Arguments heard. The present Appeal has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the DDA”) against the order dated 07.08.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.100 of 2012 filed by the Respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainants”). The said Complaint was allowed by the State Commission. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainants, who are husband and wife, had applied for allotment of a flat under a scheme promulgated by the DDA. They had applied for HIG flat in General category. In the draw of lots, they were declared successful candidates and HIG flat no.603, 6th floor, Sector-29, Pocket-O, Block A, Rohini was allotted to them on 18.04.2011. Vide acknowledgement dated 30.05.2011, they had submitted all -3- the necessary documents. They were called in the office for verification of the documents vide letter dated 02.06.2011. They duly followed the instructions. Vide letter dated 15.09.2011, they were intimated that they had been declared successful for allotment of the subject flat and the documents had been kept on record. However, to their dismay, after four days another letter dated 19.09.2011 was received by them from the DDA whereby they were informed that their allotment had been cancelled because their application had been forwarded by the Bank under the category of “war widows” instead of “general” category. It is not disputed that the DDA had authorised Respondent No.3, State Bank of India, as their agent to receive the application and the money and forward the same to the DDA. It was also the State Bank of India who had been authorised to sell and receive the application on behalf of the DDA. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the allotment, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the State Commission. It was alleged that they had applied under the General Category and the DDA had wrongly put them under War Widows Category and wrongly cancelled their allotment. They sought restoration and possession of the flat and also asked for the compensation. -4- 3. The DDA took the objection that it was the Bank which had taken the application of the Complainants under War Widows Category and gave them the serial no.403776 and the lucky number of the application was 130978. All the flats of general quota exhausted at random serial no.1551212 and therefore, the Complainant was not entitled to any flat under General Category. It is submitted that they are not at fault since the application forwarded to them was under the War Widows category. 4. The Respondent No.3, the State Bank of India, also filed its written version before the State Commission and took the plea that they were only authorised to receive the application and feed it in their system and to accept the Demand Draft and to send the application form to the DDA and credit the amount of the Demand Draft in the account of the DDA. The process part of the application was to be done by the DDA and therefore, the sole responsibility lies with the DDA. 5. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, has held as under: -5- 11. The possession which boils down is that the complainants were not at fault, in any event. Now the only question remains is as to what compensation they should receive. The counsel for OP-1 submitted that complainant deposited only application money of Rs.1.5 lakhs. They did not deposit further amount. That amount too was offered to be refunded. So they are not entitled to receive any compensation. 12. It is useful to mention that OP, has not taken any plea that it opened its website and offered opportunity to applicants to check their particulars and seek correction. It is not clear from where OP-2 had taken said defence. 13. We feel that the complainants should get the amount of difference in price of allotment and the market value of the flat as on date of allotment because that is the loss suffered by the complainants. Neither party has disclosed as to what was the market value of the flat on the date of allotment. 14. The brochure filed alongwith the complaint shows with the price of HIG flat in Rohini was around Rs.60 lakhs. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the recent past, the market value of the flats were not much higher than the price of allotment. The reason being that DDA had increased the price so much so that it is almost equal to the market value. 15. xxxxxxxxxxx 16. xxxxxxxxxxx 17. Even if it is assumed for a moment and for the sake of argument that OP-2 is responsible for wrong categorization, still OP-2 was only an agent of OP-1. A principal is responsible for acts of agent. Thus in any event compensation has to be paid by OP-1 and not by OP-2. 18. In view of the above discussion OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. In case of failure it would be liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of order till the date of payment.” -6- 6. This order is impugned before me on the same grounds taken before the State Commission which is that the application of the Complainants was processed under the War Widows category by the State Bank of India and that the fault squarely lied upon them and therefore, they are not liable to compensate the Complainants. 7. It is argued on behalf of the Complainants/ Respondents No.1 and 2 that the Respondent No.3 State Bank of India was acting as an agent and its duty was only to collect the application form and receive the DD and forward the application to the DDA and deposit the money received under the DD in the account of the DDA. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent No.3 State Bank of India was authorised to receive the application form and the DD on behalf of the DDA. Learned Counsel for the DDA has failed to show that under any agreement, the State Bank of India was authorised to categorise the applications received by it under various categories. Moreover, from the application form submitted by the Complainants, it is apparent that they had duly applied in -7- the General Category. Even the Complainants could not have been considered under the category of War Widows as they are husband and wife. It seems the DDA has acted callously, unmindfully and carelessly. It is their fault that they had treated the application of the Complainants under the War Widows Category. Therefore, the allotment which has been duly done by draw of lots wherein the Complainants had been declared successful, cannot be cancelled by the DDA solely on the ground that they had wrongly processed the application in the wrong category. The order of the State Commission is, thus, based on the cogent evidences on record. I found no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present Appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
