DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Kamini Chopra

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the order dated 26th May, 1994 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. A -20/91 by which the State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the present Respondent, Smt. Kamini Chopra, who was complainant in the Original Complaint, against the present Appellant, Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA). In that Appeal Delhi Administration was also arrayed as respondent but, as it has nothing to do with the matter it has not been joined in the present Revision Petition filed by the DDA.

BY the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the orders of the District Forum, Delhi which had directed the Complainant to approach Civil Court as there was controversy between the parties regarding the amount which the DDA is liable to pay to the complainant, Smt. Kamini Chopra and thus the dispute necessitated accounting. Present Petitioner had been arrayed as opposite party in the complaint. It is not necessary to go in detail into the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the State Commission vide the impugned order held that the facts of the present case are similar to the ones in DDA v. A.N. Sehgal (A -89/92) decided on 22nd September, 1993 and the ratio of that case was fully applicable to the facts of the present case and consequently it directed the DDA to work out interest on the instalments deposited by the complainant as observed in the Sehgals case and refund the amount of interest to the complainant. Against the order passed in the Sehgals case DDA filed Revision Petition No. 578 of 1994 before this Commission. It was decided on 30th October, 1995. In that case, this Commission had held that the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Interest is one of the components taken into consideration while determining the price of the flat which is the subject matter in the present case. That order fully covers the present case. Accordingly, we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant respondent. We make no order as to costs.