A.VIRARAGHVAN vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

IT is the complainant who is petitioner before us. Though he succeeded before the District Forum in his complaint but his complaint was dismissed by the State Commission in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IN the complaint deficiency in service was alleged on the part of the respondent-Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on the ground that it delayed conversion of leasehold right in the flat of the complainant to freehold. It appears during the pendency of the complaint the leasehold right of the allottee, complainant was converted into freehold. Holding that there was in fact deficiency in service on the part of the DDA, District Forum made the following orders : "Taking all these facts into consideration ends of justice would be met if DDA is directed as follows : (a) to return to the complainant ground rent collected by DDA for the year 94-95 with 18% interest on the said amount. (b) to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and also for causing mental agony, torture and suffering to the complainant. (c) to pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant as cost of litigation. The above directions should be complied with by DDA within 2 months of the receipt of the copy of the present order, otherwise complainant will be free to take action under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

Appeal against this order was filed by the DDA before the State Commission. Appeal was obviously barred by limitation. But it was not dismissed by the State Commission who was of the view that the same could be treated as a revision as question of exercise of jurisdiction by the District Forum arose in the matter.

FOR one thing we are unable to appreciate this type of reasoning by the State Commission. A valuable right had accrued to the complainant when no appeal was filed during the period of limitation and secondly the District Forum did not lack its jurisdiction to try the complaint. Whether its view was right or wrong that the allegations in the complaint amounted to deficiency in service could certainly not be inherent lock of jurisdiction for the State Commission to exercise its jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 17 of the Act. Nevertheless, State Commission relying on the decision of this Commission in DDA v. S. S. Puri, 1997 1 CPJ 86 (NC), held in favour of the DDA and thus dismissed the complaint. In the aforesaid judgment, a para which has been narrated by the State Commission, National Commission observed as under : "The complainant is an allottee of the MIG flat on the lease-hold basis. He applied for conversion as lease-hold rights into free-hold rights in respect of the said flat. The complainant paid the conversion charges from lease-hold to free-hold. The deposits/payment of the conversion charges is not for hiring of the services of the DDA. There is no hiring of service for consideration within the meaning and scope of the Consumer Protection Act."

WE are not quite sure if the aforesaid observation states correct provision of law and the issue will be again considered in an appropriate case when National Commission is fully constituted. We would not like to interfere in the order of the State Commission particularly when there has already been an order of conversion of leasehold rights of the complainant into freehold. In the impugned judgment State Commission has also observed that there is no limitation in filing a revision petition. This is not correct in view of judgment of this Commission in Kerala Consumer Protection Centre v. District Executive Officer, Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, 2002 2 CPJ 142 (SC) = Revision Petition No. 804/2001 decided on 19th November, 2001. Though technically we will dismiss this petition yet at the same time award Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the complainant.