Delhi Development Authority (for short, the DDA), Petitioner herein which was the Opposite Party, has filed this Revision Petition against the judgement/Order dated 9.5.2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  (for short, the State Commission), Delhi  passed in appeal No.311/2007 by which  the State Commission upheld the Order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

          Petitioner  vide demand-cum-allocation letter dated 8^th January, 1988/15^th January, 1988 allocated a flat  to Respondent-Complainant  in Vasant Kunj at an estimated cost of Rs.3,39,600/- .   90% of this estimated cost was to be paid in four installments as per schedule given  in the demand letter. Fourth installment was due on  15.7.1989, but it was deferred by the Petitioner to 29.2.1992.  Respondent paid this instalment  on 24.3.1992 after a delay of 24 days.  On account of this delayed payment, Petitioner considered the allocation cancelled  “automatically” and the name of the Respondent was not included in the draw of lots for allotment of a specific flat.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed a Civil Writ Petition No.216/93 in the High Court of Delhi.  By way of interim Order,   High Court directed the Petitioner to keep one flat reserved for  Respondent.  During the hearing on 27.9.93 in the High Court, it was mutually agreed between the parties that  Respondent shall pay interest and cancellation charges and Petitioner  shall inform  Respondent  of the details of the flat reserved for him  in terms  of the   interim  Order passed by the High Court.  During  the hearing on 7^th December, 1993  in the High Court, Respondent  tendered  pay Orders for the balance amount due towards the cost of the flat as well as the restoration charges.  Counsel for the Petitioner sought time for filing affidavit for calculation of the cost of the flat.   The affidavit was never filed by Petitioner.  On 9^th February, 1996  High Court was informed by the Parties that  Respondent had made a representation to the DDA and the DDA was considering the same and Respondent was hopeful of settlement out of Court.   Thereafter, parties  stopped  appearing before the High Court and ultimately  Writ Petition was dismissed in default on 14.10.96. 

 Later on as per Respondent’s request for out of Court settlement his case was regularized subject to payment of  current cost.   Vide demand-cum-allotment letter dated 28.5.1999, Respondent was allotted flat No.6544 in Sector  6 & 7, Vasant Kunj at the disposal cost of Rs.12,95,800/-.   On protest by Respondent the disposal cost was reduced by Petitioner to Rs.11,37,400/- and revised demand letter dated 8^th October, 1999 was issued to him.  On further representation made by Respondent to Vice Chairman of DDA, matter was examined and the cost was  reduced to Rs.10,75,000/- and revised demand letter dated 11^th November, 1999 was issued to Respondent.  As per this revised demand letter a sum of Rs.2,30,787/- became refundable and was refunded to  the Respondent on 18.11.1999.  On 10^th November, 2002 Crime Branch raided the Petitioner’s office.  Concerned Officer of the Crime Branch took the file of Respondent along with other files.  Respondent’s file was returned back with the  remarks that  amount of 20%  surcharge refunded on 18.11.99  was against the Authority’s Resolution No.105 dated 27.8.1996.  Accordingly, on the basis of the remarks made by the Crime Branch matter was  again examined and  demand was raised  on 30^th January, 2002 and the Respondent was asked to deposit the amount of surcharge along with interest.  Respondent after depositing the sum of Rs.2,15,586/- applied for execution of conveyance deed.  Petitioner executed the conveyance deed in favour  of the Respondent on 22.7.2002.

Thereafter, Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.   District Forum after appraising the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that  automatic cancellation of the allotment  made to the Respondent, was illegal and the  Petitioner was not entitled to charge 20% as surcharge on the disposal cost of the allotted flat in terms of the policy  dated 31.3.1999.  That the Petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service and accordingly complaint was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to refund the sum of Rs.2,15,586/- to the Respondent along with   Rs.1 lakh by way of compensation for the undue harassment  and mental agony suffered by the Respondent.  Rs.5000/- was  awarded by way of costs.

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal before State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned Order.

Counsel for the Petitioner contends that as per policy dated 31^st March, 1999,  20% surcharge was chargeable in case the flat was situated in South Delhi.  

We do not find  substance in this submission.  Surcharge was waived off by the Vice Chairman, DDA.  Respondent had already been allotted the flat in the year 1988 and he paid the estimated price with a delay of 24 days in paying the fourth installment.   Respondent had challenged the action of the Petitioner.   In negotiating settlement the Petitioner had agreed  to restore the flat to the Respondent on payment of current market price.  The Respondent deposited the market price.   But on a representation made by him the estimated price was reduced twice.  Respondent had initially paid the sum of  Rs.12,95,800/-.    On protest raised by Respondent, the disposal cost was reduced to Rs.11,37,400/-.  Subsequent to that on a representation made by the Respondent, Vice Chairman of the Petitioner reduced the price to Rs.10,75,000/-.   The Order passed by the Vice Chairman attained finality.   Petitioner refunded  the amount of Rs.2,15,586/- out of the disposable cost deposited by the Respondent.  On a remark made by the  Crime Branch  that the refund was not permissible as per the Authority’s Resolution No.105 dated 27.8.1996.    Petitioner raised  a fresh demand.   District Forum came to the conclusion that  cancellation of the flat in the year  1992 was illegal and unjustified and therefore, the policy dated 31^st March, 1999 was not applicable  in the instant case.  Merely because Crime Branch found fault with the decision of the Vice Chairman, does not mean that the decision of the Vice Chairman  could have been ignored.   Petitioner had accepted the decision of the Vice Chairman and did not challenge it any further.   The Order of the Vice Chairman had attained finality.   Petitioner was not justified in raising the demand afresh only on the basis of the remarks made by the Crime Branch.   Only on the pointing out by the Crime Branch, Petitioner could not  ask  the Respondent to pay the amount of Rs.2,15,586/-.  The Crime Branch had no authority to overrule  the Order passed by the Vice Chaiman of the Petitioner.  Fora below have rightly directed the Petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.2,15,586/- to the Respondent. 

In the end, counsel for the Petitioner contended that the compensation of Rs.1 lakh  ordered by the Fora below was unreasonable and excessive.  We do not find any substance in this submission.  Respondent deposited the sum of Rs.2,15,586/-  with the Petitioner  in the year 2002.  He has been deprived of the  use of money for  almost nine  years.   Fora below had not awarded  any interest on the sum  of Rs.2,15,586/- ordered to be refunded.  In the circumstances compensation of Rs.1 lakh ordered to be paid  is neither excessive nor unreasonable. Respondent has been unduly harassed for almost two decades by Petitioner.

 No merit.  Dismissed with further costs of Rs.5000/-.