These are two cross appeals, one filed by the Complainant/Pramod Pal Singh and the other by the OP/Delhi Development Authority. The case of the complainant before the State Commission was that he had purchased a flat from the DDA in 1996. Despite paying Rs.3,98,100/- as against the total sale consideration of Rs.3,36,840/- during 1996 itself, possession of the flat, in a habitable condition, was not given to him. As per the Consumer Complaint filed before the State Commission—
“6. That these units are inhabitable due to the lack of basic amenities and in spite of the complainant writing to the opposite party for the status of the basic amenities available on 12.2.96, 25.1.97, 8.3.97, 8.4.97, 2.6.97, 4-10.97, 31.8.2000, 31.10.2000, 7.3.2001, 17.9.2001, 1.10.2001, 20.12.2001 and 25.2.2002 besides visiting their offices a number of times but the opposite party has indulged in befooling the complainant that these are available where in none of these is available at site and all the houses are in a depleted stage devoid of even their doors, fittings etc. as has been conveyed by the complainant to the opposite party on 21.1.2002 by paying a visit to the site and the same has not been rebutted by the opposite party. Complainant has visited the house for the last six years but there is no development whatsoever for all these years.”
He therefore, sought the following relief—
“1. That the complainant be awarded Rs.10000/- per month towards loss suffered by him w.e.f. 1.2.96 till the habitable property in question is handed over to him. This comes to Rs.710000/- on 31.12.2002.
2. That Rs.20000/- be awarded as costs of correspondence and visits to the opposite party for all these years.
3. That excess amount recovered/paid by opposite party be refunded with 24% p.a. interest thereon till payment to the complainant.
4. That any excess stamp duty increase w e f 1.2.96 shall be on account of opposite party as this delay is solely on account of the opposite party.
5. That Rs.1 lakh be awarded towards mental torture and harassment suffered all these years by the complainant in the hands of the opposite party.
6. Rs 5000 towards the cost of this case.”
2. The State Commission allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs 3 lakhs, observing that—
“The defects which have been pointed out by the complainant in the flat allotted to him are substantial and cannot be said to be minor or cosmetic. Obviously, by the action of the DDA, the complainant could not take the possession of the flat in question on account of the callous and inapt attitude of the officers of the DDA leading to the complainant to reside in the rented house. The complainant is deprived of possession of the house w.e.f. 1.2.96 and till today, the property in question, has not been made habitable by the callous attitude of the DDA.The complainant has claimed a loss of Rs.7,10,000/- upto 31.12.02 and thereafter Rs.10,000/- p.m. interest thereon and also Rs. One lac as compensation for the entire relief, we quantify the amount of damages as compensation for all counts as Rs.Three lacs inclusive of the litigation charges.”
3. We have carefully considered the records submitted by the two sides in their respective appeals. Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate has been heard on behalf of the DDA and Mr Lajinder Singh, the Authorised Representative, on behalf of the complainant.
4. The above order is assailed in the appeal filed by the complainant (FA/386/2013) primarily on the ground that “the impugned order is totally silent with the possession while the same continued to be main relief prayed in the complaint and reiterated in the interim application dated 13.9.2005. The appellant has thus been denied the main relief of possession of the property in “property circumstances” in the right earnest inspite of findings in his favour.” In this context, a perusal of the impugned order does show that in Para 11 thereof, the State Commission has given a categorical finding of fact that the defects pointed out by the complainant in the flat allotted to him are substantial and cannot be said to be minor or cosmetic. Yet, the direction given to the OP/DDA has been limited to paying a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs with interest.
5. Even during the course of arguments before this Commission, photographs of the concerned structure were presented on behalf of the appellant/complainant showing its present physical status. We were satisfied that the flat offered to the complainant was, prima facie, not habitable. However, learned counsel for the DDA stated that the flats are habitable. We were not satisfied with the statement made by the counsel. Therefore, in order to verify whether the flat is habitable or not, we appointed Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Advocate to go and inspect the flat in question as well as the building in which the flat is located and to make his report.
6. The report received from Mr Gauhar Mirza on 10.10 2013 has been considered. On the findings, it also contains supporting photographic evidence. The report clearly brings out that the structure has plaster cracks in the front and some windows have no glasses. The kitchen, the electricity panel on the staircase, the toilet and the switch box have no wiring. Several doors have no knobs on them. The photographs show that the tiles are in a highly damaged state and external plaster is falling apart in several places. Learned counsel for the DDA fairly conceded that the defects brought out in the report of the Court Commissioner, Mr Gauhar Mirza, will have to be rectified, before the flat can be considered habitable.
7. The appeal filed by the complainant also raises certain issues alleging violation of norms of construction by a neighbouring allottee. It is evident, that these issues fall within the statutory domain of the concerned authorities. They are not open to consideration in a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in the service rendered to the Complainant. The State Commission has therefore rightly refrained from giving any directions in relation to them.
8. In the light of the details considered above, the appeal of the Complainant (FA/386/2013) is partially allowed. In addition to the relief granted by the State Commission, it is further directed that—
a. The DDA shall restore the flat/structure allotted to the complainant to the physical condition it was in when the possession thereof was offered to the complainant in 2004. In particular, the defects therein, pointed out in the report of the Court Commissioner appointed by this Commission, shall be rectified. Such rectification/restoration shall be done by the DDA at its own cost.
b. After rectification/restoration as above, possession of the flat shall be handed over to the complainant within three months from the date of this order.
c. On other issues raised in the appeal, liberty is reserved for the complainant to seek appropriate remedy as per law.
9. The appeal of the DDA (FA/355/2013) is dismissed for want of merit.
