AMIR SINGH vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant got a flat registered with the DDA in September 1979. He was allotted a flat No. 867, Block ''B'' East of Lord Road, Delhi vide letter dated 23/27 April 1990. The price of the flat was fixed by the DBA as Rs. 1,81,500/-. The complainant went to inspect the flat and found that that was in possession of some other person. It is alleged that he could not get the physical possession thereof for a period of 15 monrtis inspite of various visits to the office of the DDA.

LATER on 14.2.92 he was allotted flat No. 560, 3rd Floor, ''B'' Block, East of Loni Road and the earlier plqt was cancelled. The DDA mentioned the price of the flat as Rs. 2,64,700/-. It is alleged that the DDA was not entitled to enhance the price of the flat from Rs. 1,81,500/- to Rs. 2,64,700/- and the said enhancement is arbitrary, malafide and liable to be struck down. He has also claimed damages for the delay in allotting the second flat, @Rs. 1300/-p.m. from 12.11.90to 14.2/92. The service of the notice was effected on the respondent for 14.9.92. On that date Sh. Sanjay Kamar, Advocate appeared for DDA and requested for adjournment for filing the written statement. The case was adjourned to 17.9.92 but the written statement was not filed on that date. Again at the request of the Counsel for the respondent the case was adjourned to 19.10.92 for written statement. On 19.10.92 no written statement was filed and the case was adjourned at the request of Mr. Sanjay Kumar to 23.11.92 subject to payment of Rs. 150/- as costs, for written statement. Even on 23.11.92 the written statement was not filed and it was adjourned to 21.12.92 for that purpose subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs. On 21.12.92 again the written statement was not filed nor the costs paid. Further costs of Rs. 200/- were imposed and the case was adjourned to 25.1.93 for the same. On 25.1.93 no one appeared on behalf of the respondent nor the costs were paid. Consequently they were proceeded against ex-parte. The case was adjourned to 4.2.93 for ex-parte arguments.

The facts given in the complaint have been supported by the complainant by an affidavit of the complainant. It is evident from the facts that the complainant had been allotted the flat on payment of Rs. 1,81,500/- vide order dated 23/27.4.90. However, he could not take possession of the flat as it had already been allotted to some other person. Latter another fiat was allotted to him on 14.2.92. It is mentioned by the complainant that the second flat is situated in the same locality in which the earlier flat was allotted. The accommodation in both the flats is similar. If on account of mistake on the part of the officials of the respondent, the complainant could not be delivered the possession of the flat allotted to him in April 1990, he is not liable to pay the price of the other flat allotted to him later, at the enhanced price. Consequently, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the second flat at the same price on which he was allotted the first flat. Thus the respondent is not entitled to charge Rs. 1,81,500/- as price of that flat and the complainant, therefore, is entitled to the refund of Rs. 83,200/- paid by him in excess.

THE only question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to the less of rent Rs. 1300/- p.m. as claimed by him. It is not disputed that earlier the flat was allotted to him on 12.11.90. In case the possession of that flat had been given to him he would have been able to either use it himself or give it on rent. He has been deprived of that benefit. On the other hand the respondent used the money deposited by the complainant till 14.2.192. THE complainant is, therefore, entitled to compensation on account of delayed delivery of the possession of the flat. It is not possible to assess the rent of the house in the absence of any reliable evidence. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the complainant will amply be compensated incase he is given interest by the respondent @ 15% p.a. on the amount deposited by him from 12.11.90 to 14.2.92. In case some amount on account of interest has been given by the respondent to the complainant that amount may be deducted by the respondent. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the Complaint with costs and order that the respondent should charge Rs. 1,81,500/- on account of cost of the flat and pay to him interest on the amount deposited by him from 12.11.90to 14.2.92 @15% p.a. Incase some amount has been paid by them to the complainant as interest on the said amount for the said period that amount may be deducted from the amount of the said interest. The order be complied with by the respondent within a period of three months failing which action will be taken against them u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1500/- Complaint allowed with costs.