D D A vs S S Puri

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 8.11.95 passed by the Delhi State Commission reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 4,000/ - to Rs. 1,500/ - awarded by the District Forum -II, Delhi, in the Order dated 30.3.95.

THE facts lie in a narrow compass and may be noticed. The complainant is an allottee of a M.I.G. fat bearing No. 62 -A, Pocket A & B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, allotted to him by the Delhi Development Authority (for short called D.D.A.) in one of its schemes. The complainant applied for a conversion of his leasehold rights in respect of the said flat into free -hold. The application for conversion was received by the DDA on 4.2.93. The complainant filed a complaint before the conveyance deed was executed by the DDA, before the District Forum -II, Delhi alleging, inter alia, the deficiency in service provided by the DDA and claimed damages/compensation of Rs. 5,155/ - and also for a direction to dispose of the complainant''s application for conversion of lease -hold rights into free -hold rights. The conveyance for free -hold status was executed on 13th June, 1994. On being noticed the DDA gave its written version and submitted that the time taken by the DDA for processing the case for conversion from lease -hold to free -hold in respect of the said flat was just and reasonable and need not be termed as actionable. It was also pleaded that there was no hiring of service for consideration. The District Forum found that there was deficiency in service and the complainant was entitled to compensation for the harassment caused to him and for the costs incurred which were assessed at Rs. 4,000/ -. In the appeal filed by the DDA a specific objection was taken that it was not established on record that by the delay the complainant had suffered any monetary loss, that no case had been made out for the grant of a compensation of Rs.

000/ -, AND that there was no hiring of service for consideration. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal AND reduced the quantum from Rs. 4.000/ - to Rs. 1,500/ - leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 4. We have heard Mr. N.K. Thanai, Advocate for the DDA AND the respondent who appeared in person AND have gone through records of the case. In our view, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction as there is no hiring of service for consideration apart from the fact that no loss has been established on record. It is evident from the record that the day the application for conversion of lease -hold rights into free -hold rights is filed, the status is changed from free -hold AND the ground rent stANDs stopped. The submission of the respondent is also that his complaint against the DDA was not for any monetory loss but against the deficiency in service rendered by the DDA causing mental harassment. Clause (d) of Sub -section 1 of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for grant of relief to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. Negligence is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is expected to observe in a given set of circumstances. But, the negligence for which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this sub -section must cause some loss or injury to him. Thus, the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) are attracted only if the person from whom damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently AND such negligence must result in some loss to the person claiming damages. In other words, loss or injury, if any, must flow from negligence (see Consumer Unity AND Trust Society, Jaipur v. Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Anr., I (1995) CPJ 1 (SC).

THE complainant is an allottee of the MIG flat on 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 deposit/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. For the above reasons, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission are set aside and the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition allowed. ===========================================================================