B.L.PATNEY And KRISHNA PATNEY vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BRIEFLY, the facts are that the complainants gave bid for a plot No. A-3/133 measuring 100 sq. yds (20'' x 45''), Paschim Vihar in an auction held by the Delhi Development Authority on 4.1.88. Their bid for Rs. 2,92,000/- was the highest bid. They deposited Rs. 75,000/- as earnest money at the spot. They were informed by the D.D.A. vide letter dated 18.1.88 that their bid had been accepted and the balance amount of the plot be deposited before 18th February, 88. They deposited the balance amount on 17th February, 88.

INSPITE of their repeated requests it is alleged, they were not informed about the date of delivery of the possession. Ultimately, they were directed to take possession on 14.6.88. An officer informed them on that date at the site that the measurement of the plot differed from what had been auctioned and until plan was checked the possession could not be delivered to them. In April 89 the complainants were directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 41,594.55 by the D.D.A. as excess money of the area exceeding the area auctioned, within 15 days vide letter dated 26th April, 89. The excess area was 11.91 meters. It is pleaded by the complainants that they deposited the amount on 12th August, 89, though no consent had been obtained from them for alloting excess area. They were again directed to deposit an account of Rs. 3,033/- as interest and they also deposited the same on 5.11.89. Ultimately, the possession was given to the complainants on 1.12.89. The complainants have claimed interest on the amounts deposited by them.

They further averred that they were not liable to pay interest of Rs. 3,033/- to the D.D.A. which was charged @ 25% per annum. They have also made a grievance that the frontage of the plot had been reduced from 20'' to 17''. It is further alleged by them that the reserve price of the plot was Rs. 2,25,000/- whereas they were required to deposit Rs. 2,92,000/-. Thus they were entitled to refund of Rs. 67,000/- on this account and an amount of Rs. 44,627.50p. on account of excess amount deposited subsequently and interest on that amount. Total amount claimed is Rs. 2,68,777.50 p. (Note: The totals given in the complaint are not correct but the figures given by them have been retained as they are)

THE claim has been contested by the D.D.A. which has inter alia pleaded that the area which was to be auctioned at the spot was approximate area. It was clarified to the auction purchasers at the time of auction that if there was variation of 15% in the area, the purchasers were bound to accept the same, and in case the variation was more than 25%, allottee had the option to return the plot and claim refund of the amount. It is further pleaded that they were not entitled to any interest as claimed by them. The main question that arises for determination is as to whether the D.D.A. was entitled to Rs. 44,627.50 p on account of excess area given to the complainants. It is not disputed that 11.91 sq. meters was allotted to them in excess of the area which was auctioned at the site. According to condition No. 3 of the conditions of sale, the complainants could be given 15% either way of the area auctioned at the spot and for the excess area the price was to be worked out at the rate at which the bid had been given by a purchaser. So that D.D.A. could charge the price of the excess area measuring 11.9 meters from the complainants according to the terms of the sale and the complainants cannot make a grievance in this regard.

THE second question that arises for determination is whether the D.D.A. could reduce the frontage from 20 feet to 17 feet. We have seen the complaint carefully and find that no prayer by the complainants in mat regard has been made in the complaint. However, there is no substance in this claim of the complainants as well. As already mentioned, the complainants were bound to accept 15% variation in the land. Variation would include the variation in dimensions of the plot. In these circumstances they are not entitled to this relief, as now claimed by them. Regarding claim of interest the grievance of the complaints appears to be genuine. The plot was auctioned on 4th January, 1988 and the possession was delivered to the complainants on 1st December, 89, i.e. after about 23 months. Plots are normally auctioned after having been demarcated at the spot. In the present case, we were informed that when the auction was held plots of different dimension areas existed at the spot. It is very sad that D.D.A. auctioned the plots without demarcating them. If it was done intentionally it was a fraud on the auction purchasers and if it was done through over sight; it was negligence of highest magnitude on the part of the officers. It is common knowledge that in D.D.A. highly paid Engineers & Architects supervise the work of demarcation of plots. In the present case it appears to be the dereliction of duty on the part of the staff who were associated with the demarcation of plots. D.D.A. has been created to help common man and not to punish them. To order to a citizen to deposit the savings of his life towards the price of the plot and not to deliver the possession of the same to him for a long time, is not less than a punishment for him. After the plots were auctioned and the auction money had been deposited it was incumbent on the D.D.A. to deliver the possession within a reasonable period. I think maximum period for delivery of possession should not have exceeded six months from the date of auction, if the auction purchaser had deposited the auction money. According to this criteria the possession should have been delivered to the complainants in the first week of July, 1988, whereas it has been delivered in the first week of December, 1989, i.e. after 17 months. In my view, the complainants are entitled to interest from D.D.A. on the amount deposited by them for a period of 17 months. I award interest to the complainants at the rate of 15% as was granted in case No. C-4/89 N.K. Bhardwaj v. D.DA. decided on 6.12.90 on Rs. 2,92,000/- for a period of 17 months and on Rs. 41,594.50 p for a period of about 4 months. It is needless to mention that the defendants illegally enjoyed the benefit of Rs. 2,92,000/-. The amount of interest on the said amounts @ 15% per annum comes to Rs. 65,130/-. I, however, make it a round figure and reduce the amount to Rs. 65,000/-.

IT will be appropriate for the D.D.A. in this case to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility of the officials, who were responsible for the inconvenience of the consumers and causing loss to the D.D.A.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the complaint and direct the D.D.A. to pay an amount of Rs. 65,000/- to the complainants with interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 65,000/- from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of payment of the amount within a period of two months from the date of the order failing which action will be taken against it under the Consumers Protection Act. Appeal partly allowed. ____________