Delhi Development Authoirty vs RAJ KUMAR MEENA

MR. Justice R.C. Jain, Presiding Member-Aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.2008 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint case No. 229/98, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant and against the DDA for not-handing over the possession of the flat in question in time in spite of having received the entire consideration. Besides, the State Commission has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. on entire consideration from the date of last deposit till the date of possession.

THE facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint before the State Commission and then the present appeal are that vide allotment-cum-demand letters dated 29.4.1997/2.5.1997, complainant was allotted a ready built flat in Dwarka for total consideration of Rs. 7,27,800 and after adjustment of the initial deposit amount of Rs. 50,000, the complainant was required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 6,81,549 within 60 days from the date of issue of the letter. Complainant paid the said amount to the DDA on 2.7.1997. However, at the site the complainant found that the flat was still under construction and the facilities of water and electricity were not made available. The complainant made a representation in that behalf to the DDA but with no result and rather complainant was asked to deposit a further sum of Rs. 58,244 on account of stamp duty on the conveyance deed. Even this money was paid by the complainant on 8.2.1999. Still the possession of the flat was not delivered to the complainant and rather he was asked to deposit a further sum of Rs. 35,920 on account of interest for delayed payment, enhanced freehold charges and maintenance charges. The complainant, however, did not pay this amount and filed the complaint. The DDA contested the complaint denying any deficiency in service on their part and it was pleaded that the complainant failed to pay the demands raised from time-to-time and, therefore, the possession of the flat could not be handed over to him. It would appear that during the pendency of the complaint, the possession of the flat was offered vide letter dated 28.2.2002 and it was accepted by the complainant without prejudice to his claim in the complaint filed by him before the State Commission. The State Commission, going by the facts and circumstances of the case and that the delivery of the possession of the flat was delayed due to non-payment of small amount of Rs. 12,150 on account of maintenance charges which was payable only after delivery of possession, concluded that the DDA had committed deficiency in service. The Commission also noticed that action of the DDA in not delivering the possession was arbitrary, whimsical and capricious because even the payment of Rs. 12,150 was made in the year 1997 and despite that delay of five years was caused in delivering the possession. Taking support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65 and Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243, the State Commission allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.

BEFORE we proceed to discuss the grounds on which the impugned order is sought to be assailed, we may notice that the present appeal has been filed after undue delay of 386 days. Along with the Memorandum of Appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. Para 2 of the said application contains the reasons due to which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation and reads as under: "That the certified copy of the order was received by the appellant on 23.9.2008 from the learned State Commission. The Law Officer (housing) after receiving the same asked the dealing hand to examine the order in case the same need to be challenged. The dealing hand after opining sent the file to the department who endorsed the opinion of the dealing hand. The file was sent to the Dy. Director (Housing). The facts were examined at various levels. The decision to file an appeal was taken on 20.2.2009. The case was entrusted to the panel lawyer on 20.2.2009. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Panel Lawyer on 6.3.2009 who prepared the appeal and sent the appeal to the department within two days for getting the appeal signed from the concerned official and statutory deposit/demand draft prepared was filed."

SINCE we were not impressed with the above reason / ground set up for condonation of delay, we called upon the higher authorities of the DDA to explain as to how they propose to tackle this perennial problem of filing the appeals and petitions after undue delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation. In response to the same, affidavit of Director (Housing), DDA has been filed which would at best show that officer and authorities concerned of the DDA do not take the prescribed period of limitation for filing the Court proceedings seriously and it is left to the lower most functionaries to deal with such cases. In the affidavit it is sought to be explained that the delay was at lower rank officers who have been issued certain memos to be careful in future. We are still not satisfied with explanation. The delay in this case is of more than one year and an organization which has a battery of officers and officials at its beck and call cannot be allowed to take lame excuses that the delay has been occasioned at the level of lower rank officials. It would appear to us that senior officers have failed to exercise their supervisory role in such important matters. It is settled legal position that any petitioner who seeks indulgence in the matter of condonation of delay must explain the delay on day to day basis. Mere averments and allegations that the matter remained pending with certain officer(s) for long period is no excuse, and in any case, wholly insufficient for exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner and to condone the delay. This is not the first ever case where appeals and petitions have been filed by the DDA after such long delays and we have come across many more such cases which would only show that it has become a routine habit on the part of the DDA officials to file the appeals and petitions after undue delay. We have not noticed any improvement in this tendency despite our showing concern in that behalf. Accordingly, we decline the prayer for condonation of 386 days delay in the present case. Consequently, we do not wish to dwell on the merits of the appeal.

IN the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed as hopelessly barred by time. Before parting with the matter, we would like the Vice-Chairman DDA to take the departmental action initiated against the DDA officials to a logical conclusion and to file Action Taken Report in this Commission. Revision Petition dismissed.