DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs A.N.SAIGAL

THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. By the impugned order the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) has been directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the instalments deposited by the present Respondent-Mr. A.N.Saigal, who was the complainant, from the date of deposit till 14th February, 1986. The refund was ordered to be made within a period of three months filing which the amount is to carry interest at the rate of 15% from the date of complaint till the date of payment. Feeling aggrieved by the said order DDA has filed this Revision Petition.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant has applied for a flat under Self Financing Scheme (SFS) and was allocated flat in Category-II in Vasant Kunj, Pocket-5, Sector-B on the basis of draw held on 14th December, 1988. The complainant vide his letter dated 9th July, 1985 requested for a change in allocation in view of his impending retirement. The request of the complainant for change was accepted and the flat of Category-II, SFS flat on 2nd floor in Kishangarh, Sector-A Residential Scheme was allocated to him and an Allotment cum/Demand Letter dated 13th January, 1986 was issued to him. In this demand letter the scheme of payment was outlined. It was also indicated in the demand letter that "in addition to the above you are liable to pay interest charges at 10% on the amount of instalments mentioned from the due date to the actual date of payment". In the Allotment-cum-Demand letter the details of price of the new flat allocated to the complainant were clearly spelt out. The D.D. A. paid interest to the complainant at 7% on the amount of instalments deposited by him in accordance with the terms and conditions of the brochure of the scheme under which he had got himself registered in Category-II flat, Vasant Kunj. The scheme of payment was as given below: 1st instalment by 14.3.84 Rs 43,500.00 2nd instalment by 31.12.84 Rs. 34,800.00 3rd instalment by 30.6.85 Rs. 43,500.00 4th instalment by 28.2.86 Rs. 34,800.00

The complainant has made payments according to the above schedule. The scheme of payment with reference to the flat in Kishangarh which was allocated to him on his request about change was as follows : 1st instalment by 10.4.83 Rs. 59,075.00 2nd instalment by 10.10.83 Rs. 47,260.00 3rd instalment by 10.4.84 Rs. 59,075.00

TH instalment by 10.10.84 Rs. 47,260.00 4. DDA'' s case is that the comparison of the schemes of payments would indicate that in the case of flats in Kishangarh, the payment started on 10th April, 1983asagainstthepaymentsinthe Vasant Kunj Scheme where it started on 14th March, 1984. The amount of each instalment in Kishangarh Scheme was also higher as compared to the Vasant Kunj Scheme. In accordance with the Policy of DDA when a flat from earlier scheme is released in favour of new entrant the price of the flat allotted to the new entrant is determined by charging interest at the prescribed rate from the date of various instalments due as per estimated costs to the date when the payment was actually made by the new entrant with a view to ensure that the new entrant does not get undue advantage over the earlier entrants of the scheme. The interest so calculated is in fact an element for working out the cost of flat for new entrants of a scheme, though it is described as ''interest''. The changed flat in Kishangarh was allotted to the complainant on these terms which were accepted by him and he had made the payments accordingly and the possession of the flat was taken by him. It was open to the complainant to refuse this flat on these payment terms contained in the Allotment-cum-Demand letter. After having accepted the terms and after taking the possession of the flat he cannot now question those terms.

THE case of the complainant as disclosed in the counter filed in this Revision Petition is that the DDA had given up construction of the flats in Vasant Kunj, Pocket B, and therefore, the DDA took steps in adjusting the complainant in Kishangarh scheme with the intention to allot him a flat at an early date. The complainant had filed the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi which ordered the DDA to refund Rs. 34,581.45 with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of recovery till the actual date of payment to him within 30 days from the date of order. Feeling aggrieved DDA filed appeal before the State. Commission. The DDA relied upon an earlier order of the State Commission passed in case, Delhi Development Authority v. BJC Dogra, II (1992) CPJ 1039. The State Commission found salient distinction between the facts of Dogra''s case and the present case. It further held: "However, in the present as mentioned above the complainant had deposited amounts of instalments while issuing demand-cum-allotment letter, the DDA gave him interest on that amount @ 7% p.a., whereas they charged interest from him on the instalments @ 10% p.a. In our opinion, the DDA was not entitled to do so. They should have paid the interest to the complainant/respondent on the instalments deposited by him from the date of deposit till 14.2.86® 10% p.a. The appellant should work out the interest on the instalments deposited by the complainant as observed above and refund the amount of interest so worked out minus the interest which has been adjusted by the appellant in the demand -cum-allotment letter."

The contention of the DDA is that the question of price of a flat cannot be gone into by Consumer Forums and, therefore, it is not a consumer dispute. We are of the opinion that this submission has force. In Gujarat Housing Board v. Dataina Amrit Lal Phul Chand & Ors. 111(1993), CPJ 351(NC), this Commission has held : "the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forums since the price of the flat is not fixed by any law and that even if any excess charge has been collected by way of price that will not constitute a ground for contending that there is a "deficiency'' in service on the part of the opposite party".

This principal was again reiterated by this Commission in Gurinder Bedi v. D .D .A . III (1993) CPJ 404. The present case is covered by the above observation. Moreover the terms on which the flat in Kishangarh Residential Scheme was allotted to the complainant were clearly spelt out in the allotment-cum-Demand letter issued to him. After having accepted those terms and making payment the complainant took possession of the flat. The complainant cannot now be heard to repudiate a part of the transaction.

IT would not be out of place to mention here that the complainant, A.N.Saigal had filed Revision Petition No. 544 of 1993 against the above order of the State Commission. That Revision Petition was dismissed on the ground that pricing cannot be gone into by a Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it and thus acted with material irregularity. We accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order. We make no order as to costs.