DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Arvinder Singh (Dr.)

THE petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant was allotted a flat in Dwarka vide letter dated 30.4.1993. The estimated cost of the flat was Rs. 7,75,000. The complainant was asked to make payment of Rs. 3,18,249 within a week as a sequel to which the money was paid on 10.5.1993 and subsequent instalments amounting to Rs. 1,93,900 and Rs. l,55,120 were paid on 27.1.1994 and 31.7.1994. Vide letter dated 1.4.97, the complainant was informed that, due date of payment of 4th instalment has been extended to 30.6.1997. On inquiry, the complainant also came to know that the date of payment of 3rd instalment had also been deferred till 31.7.1997.

SINCE the respondent / complainant had already deposited the amount, he sought interest on this amount for the period, i.e., date(s) of payments made by him of 3rd and 4th instalments and the deferred date(s) of payments of 3rd and 4th instalments. When the matter was not getting sorted out, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who upon appreciating the evidence on record and after hearing the parties, passed the following order: "The DDA vide allocation letter mentioned had asked the complainant to make payment of 3rd and 4th instalments of Rs. 1,93,900 and Rs. 1,55,120 on 31.1.94 and 31.7.94 respectively and the complainant had made payment of these instalments on these dates. The payment of these instalments had been deferred to 31.7.1996 and 31.7.1997 respectively without any intimation to the complainant. The complainant had, therefore, been deprived of use of Rs. 1,93,900 from 31.1.1994 to 31.7.1996 and Rs. 1,55,120 from 31.7.1994 to 31.7.1997. We, therefore, direct the DDA to pay interest

@15% on 1,93,900 from 1.8.1994 to 31.7.1996 and on 1,55,120 from 1.8.1994 to 31.7.1997. " Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the father of the respondent.

WE have been taken through the statement filed by the petitioner according to which the cost of flat was Rs. 7,22,200 and admittedly, the complainant had till date paid Rs. 6,98,140 and after giving a set -off of Rs. 93,718 on account of deferment interest'', as also on account of downward refund of the cost of the flat'' amounting to Rs. 1,69,144 as well as after retaining an amount of Rs. 29,440 and certain service charges, it was found that there has been excess charge of Rs. 2,03,653. This amount was returned to the complainant in July 2005. After seeing the calculation brought on record as also the calculation made by the District Forum, we find that the period for deferment of instalment given, is common in both the cases, i.e., as per order of District Forum as well as the calculation made by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA). The main difference on the amounts noticed out by the complainant as per order of the District Forum and DDA is on account of rate of interest. While the District Forum has awarded interest @ 15% p.a., whereas as per DDA, rate of interest on the amount to be refunded on account of deferment of instalment shall be @ 10% p.a., which is as per Policy of DDA. It is by now well -settled proposition that the Consumer Fora'' cannot go into the question of Policy of the petitioner according to which the money was to be refunded on deferred instalment @10% p.a.

WE have seen the calculations and find that the calculation is as per the direction given by the District Forum and respondent/complainant has been suitably compensated in terms of orders passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission.

WE make it clear that the amount refunded by the petitioner calls for no interference as it has been refunded based on interest @10% p.a. which is a matter of policy of the petitioner, which cannot be gone into by the Consumer Fora, in view of which we find that the petitioner''s refund of the amount of Rs. 2,03,653 to the complainant, has satisfied the decree with the modification discussed above, relating to point of interest, in view of which nothing more remains to be paid and the issue should be deemed to be finally settled between the parties.

THIS revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.