DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs GANGA DEVI

THIS appeal has been filed by the Opposite Party against the order of the District Forum No. 1 dated 3rd Feb. 1993.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Smt. Ganga Devi got herself registered for allotment of an LIG flat in Registration Scheme 1979, vide No. 46375 dated 18th June, 80. She paid an amount of Rs. 1500/-on 26th September, 1980 and was allotted priority No. 4947. However, it is alleged that she has not been allotted a flat though a period of 10 years has lapsed. Therefore, she filed the complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was contested by the Opposite Party wherein they took the plea that the complainant''s priority No. was left out in the draw inadvertently and consequently, she could not be allotted a flat at her turn.

During the pendency of the complaint a flat was allotted to her at a cost of Rs. 1,63,400/-. The learned Forum ordered that the respondent was liable for the lapse and therefore, she was entitled to allotment of the flat at the price, which was prevailing in November, 1987. After taking into consideration the evidence on the record it come to the conclusion that the prevailing price of the flat in November, 1987 was Rs. 1,12,300/- and that the complainant was entitled to get the flat at that price. It further granted damages amounting to Rs. 10,000/- to her. The Opposite Party has come up in appeal to this Commission.

THE first question that arises for determination is, whether the respondent is entitled to charge Rs. 1,63,400/- as price of the flat from the complainant. It cannot be disputed that if she had been allotted a flat in 1987 she would have to pay Rs. 1,12,300/-as its price. On account of escalation in price of the material, the Opposite Party is now charging from her Rs. 1,63,400/ -. THE omission to include the name of the complainant in the draw was because of negligence on the part of the officials of the D.D A. In our view the complainant can not be allowed to suffer for their negligence. Consequently, we affirm the finding of the District Forum No. 1 on this point. The next question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to damages amounting to Rs. 10,000/- Mr. Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that no damages should have been granted to the complainant. We do not agree with this submission as well. The complainant has been unnecessarily dragged to the Court by the D.D.A. But for this complaint, she would not have been allotted a flat. Thus she has been put to an unnecessary harassment by the officials of the D.D. A. She has also been deprived of the use of the flat for a long time. In the circumstances, in our view the District Forum rightly awarded Rs. 10,000/- as damages to her.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs. Costs Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.