Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi vs Uday Kulkarni

THIS appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 23.05.2008 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereafter, the State Commission) in complaint case no.27 of 2000. By this order, the State Commission allowed the complaint with the following observations and directions: 11. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.4,05,082/- and a compensation of Rs.1.00 lac (one lac) for having been made to pay extra amount by way of interest, instead of having cancelled the allotment by the O.P. on which he would have been refunded the amount of Rs.4.00 (sic) or so and would have earned interest thereon. 12. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms with the directions to the O.P.-DDA to make the payment of Rs.4, 05,082/- and Rs.1.00 lac as compensation which shall include the cost of litigation within one month.

WE have heard Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, learned counsel for the appellant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Ms. Ananya Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and carefully considered their submissions as well as the documents and material brought on record. (i)This appeal has been filed after an undue delay of 113 days. The application for condonation of this delay gives the following explanation: That the certified coy of the order was obtained by the counsel for the appellant on 18.07.2008 from the Ld. State Commission as appellant did not receive it. The copy of the order was sent to department on 18.07.2008. The Law officer housing after receiving the same asked the dealing hand to examine the order in case the same need to be challenged. The dealing hand after opining sent the file to the department who endorsed the opinion of the dealing hand. The file was sent to the Dy. Director Housing. The facts were examined at various level (sic). The decision to file an appeal was taken on 6.11.2008. The case was entrusted to the panel lawyer on 11.11.2008 who prepared the appeal and sent the file to the department on 12.11.2008 for getting the appeal signed and for getting the statutory deposit prepared in favour of the commission. The demand draft was prepared on 4.12.2008. The appeal was signed on 5.12.2008. It is submitted that on account of impersonally machinery also no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal. Moreover the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with note making file pushing ethos are responsible for the delay.

(ii)These reasons, we are constrained to observe, are more or less the same as are being put forth by the DDA in practically every first appeal and revision petition that it files before this Commission. All that such an explanation reveals is stark indifference of the officers/officials concerned. For, example, in this case, it took the DDA nearly 4 months just to decide if an appeal should be filed. After the appeal memorandum was drafted by Mrs. Wadhwa, it took the DDA another 3 weeks to get the appeal memorandum signed and prepare the demand draft for the statutory deposit with this appeal!

(iii)We have repeatedly advised the panel lawyers of DDA and, at least on one occasion, a senior officer of the DDA (who was asked to remain present in this very context) that undue delays in filing appeals and revision petitions and offering such stereotype explanations of the delays appear to have become a matter of habit. We have also observed on several occasions that if such is the degree of attention bestowed by the DDA to statutory appeals and revisions against orders of the Consumer Fora which allegedly affect the DDAs own interest, it would not be difficult to anticipate the extent of delays that the ordinary consumers availing of the services of the DDA had to and continue to suffer. We have further voiced our view that if such delays are not effectively controlled by the DDA administration, we would be constrained to dismiss DDAs appeals and revision petitions on the ground of uncondonable delays alone. In this case, however, we condone the delay, as a last opportunity to the DDA, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10, 000/- out of which Rs.5, 000/- shall be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the remaining Rs.5, 000/- shall be paid to the respondent/complainant directly by a demand draft, within four weeks of this order.

(i)As regard the merits of the appeal, we find that the only ground advanced by the DDA is that the final demand letter issued by the DDA on 16.09.1996 and re-sent on 31.10.1996 and on 15.09.1997 at the address of the respondent/complainant mentioned in the challan as well as the allotment letter were returned unserved with the postal remarks, Left without address in other words, it was the complainants fault if he could not make the payment and obtain possession of the allotted flat when it was first offered at the price of Rs.5, 73,600/- . However, when it came to sending the revised final demand letter of 31.07.1998 to the respondent/complainant, it suddenly dawned on the DDA to send it at the latters permanent address mentioned by him in the registration application of December 1991. We are unable to see any acceptable ground as to why the DDA did not send the final demand letter of 31.10.1996 to the respondent/complainant at his permanent address when the same letter sent on 16.09.1996 at the other address of the respondent/complainant had been received back on 18.09.1996 with the above-mentioned postal remarks. That the respondent/complainant would have immediately paid the amount mentioned in the final demand letter of September-October 1996 had any of these letters reached him is amply proved by his subsequent conduct that within one month of receiving the revised final demand letter of 30.07.1998, he made full payment of the balance amount demanded, i.e., Rs. 4, 05,082, though it was so much more than Rs. 99,910/- that was payable by him in September 1996.

(ii)In this context it needs to be noted that the amount demanded in the letter dated 16.09.1996/31.10.1996 towards the full cost of the flat was Rs.5, 73,600/- whereas in the revised final demand letter of 31.07.1998, the cost had been inflated to Rs.8, 04,590/-. It is once again unclear how and why the demand in September 1996 towards the full cost of the flat, i.e., Rs. 5, 73,600/- rose to Rs. 8, 04,590/- in July 1998 when, by DDAs own showing, all construction, etc., was complete by September 1996 and the total price had been revised to Rs. 5, 73,600/- from the initial/tentative price of Rs. 4, 51,900/- of December 1991, i.e., over a period of nearly 5 years.

(i)In the course of the Proceedings before the State Commission, it was noticed that the resPondent/comPlainant had received Possession of the allotted flat on 04.05.1999. The State Commission was not justified in directing the DDA to make full refund of the amount of Rs.4, 05,082/- as well as Pay comPensation of Rs.1, 00,000/- to the resPondent/comPlainant when the latter was required to Pay to the DDA Rs. 99,910/- even in SePtember-October 1996 (or, latest by 15.01.1997).

(ii)Considering the overall Position, the ends of justice would, in our view, be adequately met by holding the resPondent/comPlainant liable to Pay the difference between the cost demanded under DDAs letter dated 16.09.1996 and the actual amount that he had Paid by way of installments uPto that date, which is stated by the DDA to be Rs. 99, 910/-. This amount ought to also carry interest, Payable to the DDA, @ 9% Per annum from 15.01.1997 (i.e., the last date by which the Payment could be made, according to the DDA) to 27.08.1998 (i.e., the date when the resPondent/comPlainant Paid the sum of Rs.4, 05,082/-).

(iii)The DDA, in turn, would be liable to refund to the resPondent/comPlainant the difference between the Rs.4, 05,082/- and the amount Payable by the comPlainant to the DDA in terms of ParagraPh 5(ii). This balance/refund amount should also carry, on grounds of equity, interest at the same rate, i.e., 9% Per annum, from 01.09.1998 till the date of actual Payment.

In conclusion, the aPPeal is Partly allowed. The DDA shall work out, jointly with the resPondent/comPlainant, the amount to be refunded to the latter in terms of the directions in ParagraPh 5 above and make the Payment due to him within four weeks from the date of this order. In addition, the DDA shall Pay costs, as already directed in ParagraPh 3 above.