DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs R.K. Meena

AGGRIEVED and dissatisfied by the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the "State Commission") dated 11th July, 2008 in Complaint No. C 173 of 2002, the Delhi Development Authority, the opposite party before the State Commission has filed this appeal as the State Commission had awarded compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh, besides Rs. 10,000 as cost for not handing over the possession of the flat in time in spite of having received the entire amount. The State Commission has also awarded 9% interest on the entire consideration amount from the last date of deposit till the date of possession.

THIS appeal has been filed with a delay of more than 80 days. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that the appeal has been filed with a delay of only 22 days. The reasons given for the delay is explained in paras 3, 4 and 5 of the application, which reads as follows: "That the matter was examined by the legal department and it was observed that there are numerous lapses on the part of the respondent and no deficiency of service is being made out on the part of the DDA. Therefore, the decision was taken to prefer an appeal before this Hon''ble Commission. That in this process a delay of 22 days have occurred in filing the appeal."

The appellant has not calculated the delay properly.

THE State Commission had announced its judgment on 11th July, 2008 and the certified copy was given to the DDA on 6th August, 2008, as can be seen from the seal on the last page of the State Commission''s order. Further, the appeal was filed only on 24th November, 2008, deducting 30 days which is the prescribed limit of filing the appeal, and, there is a delay of more than 80 days in filing this appeal for which no convincing reason has been given. Hence, this appeal can be dismissed on the grounds of delay alone. However, we have looked into the merits of the case also.

THE facts of the case in brief are as follows:

THE complainant Shri R.K. Meena, was allotted a flat by the DDA in November 1996, and he made the full payment of Rs. 6,20,953 by 7th February, 1997. However, the complainant could not take the possession of the flat before 16th October, 2001, due to lack of essential amenities like water and electricity. Accordingly, a complaint was filed before the State Commission praying for interest @ 17% per annum on the disposal cost for the period 7th February, 1997 to 16th October, 2001, amounting to Rs. 4,92,620, besides refund of watch and ward charges and also compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, interest pendente lite and future interest @ 17%. He also got the conveyance deed stamped and submitted the same to the DDA vide letter dated 10th September, 1998 and sought delivery of the possession immediately. The DDA informed that the civic amenities like water and electricity were not available and if he wished to take possession of the flat without these amenities the complainant should furnish an undertaking in this regard. This was not acceptable to him. After several correspondences and site visits the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 6,800 as watch and ward charges on 12.4.2001, and thereafter possession letter was revalidated and the possession was handed over to him on 16th October, 2001. DDA contested the case and submitted that though the DDA has deposited Rs. 13.35 lakh with the MCD and DVB respectively for providing water supply and electricity and they took their own time and the watch and ward charges were imposed on the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

THE State Commission has rightly held that the DDA or any private builder can compel a consumer to take possession of the flat which is not equipped with civic amenities like water and electricity. Offer of possession of the flat without basic facilities like water and electricity is no possession. Accordingly after analysing the case in detail, a well -reasoned order was passed by the State Commission and directions were issued to the DDA as mentioned above.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the DDA had performed its duty and discharged its responsibility by paying the requisite amount to the MCD and DVB for supplying water and electricity to the complainant. As DDA has no control over these public bodies and if they do not perform their duties in time, DDA cannot be held responsible hence, the appeal may be allowed. The respondent -complainant had filed a caveat. He submitted that he had taken a loan from the HDFC Bank at 17% for buying this flat. Though a letter was given by the DDA in the year 1999, no basic amenities were provided hence, possession was not taken. DDA has charged 18% interest for the delayed payment and also the cost of the flat, which was paid on 7th February ,1997.

HAVING heard the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the respondent who is appearing in person, we do not see any reasons to differ with the order of the State Commission, because the DDA wanted to give a paper possession of the flat to the complainant, even before basic amenities like water supply and electricity were provided. How can any body stay without these basic amenities especially in an urban area. This shows the high -handed action of the DDA which is a public body.

THE Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65, has held as follows: "The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law."

THE ratio of the case is squarely applicable to the case on hand. However, we do not consider that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is excessive. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. DDA shall comply with the order of the State Commission within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.