A.N.SAIGAL vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi passed in Appeal No. A-89/92 which was filed against the order of the District Forum-I at Delhi by the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA). The District Forum had directed the DDA to refund Rs. 34,581.45 Ps. to the complainant. This amount has been charged by the DDA from the complainant as interest. The Complainant paid the amount and took possession of the flat allotted to him.

FEELING aggrieved of that order, the DDA filed an appeal before the State Commission which partly allowed the appeal. The State Commission held that the DDA should have paid the interest to the Complainant on the instalments deposited by him from the date of deposit till 14.2.1986 @ 10% p.a. and therefore, the DDA should work out the interest on the instalments deposited by the Complainant as observed and refund the amount of interest so worked out minus the interest which has been adjusted by the DDA in the demand-cum-allotment letter. Feeling aggrieved the Complainant has come before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition. We need not go into the merits of this case as we are of the opinion that there is no consumer dispute in the present case. In a catena of cases, this Commission has held that the pricing of a flat or plot does not fall within the four corners of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The grievance put forward by the complainant relates to the question of pricing and interest is one of the components that has been taken into account by the DDA in the matter of fixing the price. In First Appeal No. 109 of 1991 Gurinder Bedi v. Delhi Development Authority, III (1993) CPJ 404 (NC) this Commission had remarked: "We are of the opinion that the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) are not empowered to go into the question of fixation of the price of the flats. Deficiency in relation to ''service'' has been defined in Clause (g) of Section 2(1A) of the Act It reads as follows: "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

Charging of escalated price by the DDA, in our opinion does not fall within the definition of ''deficiency'' in the rendering of service by the DDA. This point was considered by us in First Appeal No. 241 of 1991 decided on 7th October, 1993 wherein it was held that the pricing is not a factor which falls within the purview of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums." Moreover, after taking possession of the house and making payments, the complainant cannot be heard to repudiate a part of the transaction. In view of the above, we dismiss the present Revision Petition.