DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Barkat Lal

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. A-260/04 - Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mr. Barkat Lal by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld, but grant of interest from the date 1.11.2001 was changed to date of filing complaint.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is a member of Mianwali District House Building Society Ltd. In the draw conducted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 15.4.1986, Complainant was allotted Plot No. A-1/13 measuring 149.83 sq. yd. Complainant ''s name was approved by the Registrar of Coop. Societies on 9.10.1986 for execution of sub-lease. Complainant did not hear anything from DDA for a long period and in such circumstances, complainant wrote to the DDA/OP on 16.3.1989. OP vide letter dated 8.2.1996 asked complainant to deposit 43,516/- as late execution charges. Complainant deposited aforesaid amount and lease deed was executed on 9.2.1996. Complainant could not raise construction during first 3 years period. Complainant applied to OP for extension of time vide letter dated 22.3.1999 and got extension upto 30.6.2001 vide letter dated 7.2.2001 issued by OP, subject to payment of composition charges amounting to Rs.68,040/-. Complainant deposited charges and completed construction within the extended time. Complainant made a representation dated 13.7.2001 to the OP for refund of late execution charges of Rs.43,516/- and composition charges of Rs.68,040/-. Vide letter dated 19.10.2001, complainant was informed that composition fee from 22.3.1999 to 30.6.2001 along with late execution charges had been waived. Complainant received refund of Rs.67,890/- vide cheque dated 1.11.2001. Complainant further submitted that OP has unjustifiably withheld the balance amount of Rs.43,666/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP-Petitioner contested complaint and submitted that Rs. 43,566/- deposited by the complainant consisted of Rs.6,267/- as penalty for late execution charges of the sub-lease and Rs.37,249/- for delay in the construction from 17.11.1987 to 16.11.1996. It was further submitted that complainant was to be refunded only Rs.30,641/-, whereas he has been refunded Rs.37,249/- in excess which are to be recovered by OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.43,666/- minus composition charges for the period 9.2.1999 to 21.3.1999 with interest @ 10% p.a. from 1.11.2001 till payment. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and interest was made payable from the date of filing complaint instead of from 1.11.2001 against which, this revision petition has been filed. None appeared for the respondent even after service.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that excess amount has been refunded to the petitioner and petitioner is entitled to recover excess amount and petitioner is not liable to refund any money even then learned District Forum has committed error in allowing refund and learned State Commission further committed error in upholding order; hence, revision petition be allowed. Learned District Forum observed as under: "Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits and we have heard them and have also gone through the record. We have also seen the relevant noting file of the DDA produced by the DDA at the time of arguments. As per the very first noting on the file the sum of Rs.43,516/- consists of late execution charges of Rs.6267/- for the period 17.11.1987 to 16.11.1996 and Rs.37,249/- as penalty for non-construction for the period 17.11.89 to 16.11.91, the period from 17.11.86 to 16.11.89 being the free period. However, the complainant was never conveyed this break-up and vide letter dated 08.02.96 (Annexure A-6) the charges of Rs.43,516/- were termed only as "late execution charges ". The complainant applied for the waiver of the same and got it. Secondly, it has been admitted by the OP in its reply that no penalty is chargeable for the period of 3 years after the execution of the sub-lease deed. Hence, the OP cannot charge any penalty for non-construction prior to the period of 3 years after the execution of the sub-lease on 09.02.96. Hence, looking from both the angles the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.43,516/-. As to the composition charges paid by the complainant the same relate to the period 17.11.1996 to 30.6.2001 as conveyed to the complainant by the OP vide letter dated 8.3.2002 (Annexure A-15). As per the own admission of the OP in its reply the free period for construction was 3 years after the execution of the sub-lease on 9.2.1996 which ended on 8.2.1999. The complainant has already been granted the waiver of composition charges from 22.3.1999 to 30.6.2001. Therefore, the OP can claim the composition charges at the most for the period 09.02.99 to 21.3.99. Therefore, the withholding of the substantial amount by the OP is not justified and the OP cannot claim any refund from the complainant ".

AS per admission by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the written statement that no penalty is chargeable during the period of 3 years from the execution of sub-lease (as stated in District Forum order) and as complainant got waiver of the penalty on him and no break up of Rs.43,516/- was conveyed to the complainant in the letter issued by petitioner, learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing refund of aforesaid amount and learned State Commission has not committed any error in upholding order of refund.

WE do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.