LAL CHAND vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS is an appeal against the Order dated 27th March, 1991 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi by which the complaint filed by the present Appellant Shri Lai Chand was dismissed.

THE facts as gathered from the record are that the complainant Lai Chand now Appellant had got registered on 31st January, 1979 with Delhi Development Authority (for short D.D.A.) for allotment of a flat Category III under SelfFinancing Scheme II. He paid Rs. 10,000/ - as registration amount and he was allotted flat in pocket -B, Sidhartha Extension. He was successful in the 4th draw held on 23rd March, 1982. The Complainant paid the first four instalments in time but still the DDA showed a charge of interest amounting to Rs. 696.25 in the demand letter dated 22nd March, 1986 in respect of 5th and final instalment. Vide above letter dated 22nd March, 1986 the complainant was allotted specific flat bearing number 34 -B of Category III on first floor Sidhartha Extension. After allowing credit of Rs. 14,388.60 as interest due to the complainant beyond 2 -1/2 years from the date of registration on account of late construction of the flat a demand of Rs. 7,869.65 was made upon the complainant. The letter for delivery of possession to the complainant in respect of the flat was issued on 19th February, 1987. However the complainant noticed some defects in the flat and he wrote letters dated 4th March, 1987 and 23rd April, 1987 to the concerned officer of the D.D.A. Possession of the house was handed over to the complainant on 11th May, 1987. It was further the case of the Complainant that the flat was not in habitable condition and required extensive repairs and many replacements. He got the repairs and replacement done at his own costs and was entitled to be reimbursed. He also claimed damages on the ground that the possession of the flat was given to him very late. He claimed certain other amounts from the DDA who was the Opposite Party in the complaint. The detailed claim of the Complainant is as follows: 1. On account of interest @ 24% on the amount deposited by him. Rs. 2,25,418.00 2. Excess amount deposited by the Complainant at the instance of the D.D.A. Rs. 45,700.00 3. The amount got deposited by D.D.A. to which it was not entitled: Rs. 1,051.00

Rs. 45.00 Rs. 210.00 Rs. 696.25 Rs. 100.00

COST incurred by the Complainant for repairs/replacements. Rs. 6,450.00

DAMAGES sufferes by the Complainant because of late delivery of the possession of the flat. Rs. 3,36,000.00 Less interest paid by DDA Rs. 14,385.00 Rs. 6,00,234.00 4. The claim was contested by the D.D.A. A preliminary objection was taken which we need not refer to it as it was not urged before the State Commission nor before us. On merits it was alleged that at the time of taking over possession of the flat on 11th May, 1987 the complainant had inspected the same and made an inventory of the items fitted therein and gave a report duly signed by him to the office of the D.D.A. that the flat and the fittings were in order. In the report he had not pointed out any defect in floors, doors, windows, ventilators, finishing, water supply and sanitary etc. and therefore, he cannot point out the defects now. Other allegations of the complainants were also controverted. 5. As noticed above, the State Commission did not find any force in the complaint and dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the complainant had filed the present appeal.

BEFORE we proceed further we may mention here that vide order dated 12th February, 1993 this appeal was adjourned sine die as the identical question was pending before the Supreme Court in appeal preferred against the decision of this Commission in M.M. Sood v. Lucknow Development Authority (First Appeal No. 10/1990) and propriety demanded that the hearing of this case should be postponed until the Supreme Court renders final decision in the appeal, particularly since the operative part of the order of this Commission in the case had been stayed by the Supreme Court. After the decision of the appeal by the Supreme Court upholding the decision of this Commission, this appeal was taken up for hearing.

THE Learned Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice that at the time of taking possession on 11th May, 1987 inventories were prepared which are at pages 37 to 41 of the paper book. All those inventories were signed by the complainant and no defect was noted by the complainant in those inventories. The argument of the complainant that he has signed those inventories under coercion, otherwise the possession of the flat would not have been delivered and in case he failed to take possession of the flat within the specified time this allotment of the flat would have been cancelled. There is no evidence to show that the complainant had signed those inventories under coercion. Of course in various letters to the concerned authorities, before taking possession, the complainant had been complaining about certain defects in the flat. The State Commission was right in holding that those earlier complaints either must have been dealt with by the DDA or those defects did not exist and that is why the complainant took possession of the flat on 11th May, 1987 and signed the inventories.

IT would not be out of place to mention here that on 5th January, 1988 the complainant had written a letter to the Chairman, Delhi Development Authority pointing out certain defects which are enumerated below: 1. Toilet Floors Bed level -water to be broomed. 2. No bottle traps on wash basins. 3. Broken/uneven floors -Terrace. 4. Common street floors broken. 5. Open -Uncovered drains. 6. Siddhartha Extension behind slum area.

OPPOSITE Party -Respondent has produced annexure at page 42 in the paper book. The complainant in his own hand -writing has written that the floor of the bath room of flat No. 34 -B had been re -laid. There is another annexure at page 43 by which the complainant had confirmed as follows: 1. Floor of bath room relaid. 2. Bottle trap has not been fixed in any sink. 3. Grating on the drain provided. 4. CC path repaired. 5. Terrace set right. Thus of, the complaints made to the Chairman except the one in respect of the bottle traps, all the complaints were attended to. Of course item No. 6 mentioned in the complaint in the letter to the Chairman could not be attended to as it was not possible to do so because it related to situation of Sidhartha Extension Colony itself. Thus the only complaint which was not attended to was that bottle trap has not been fixed to the sinks. However, in the inventory dated 11th May, 1987 the complainant had admitted that the wash basins had been fitted with necessary fittings. It is the cast of the Complainant that he had actually occupied the house somewhere in January, 1988. It is possible that somebody might have removed the bottle traps. Thus the complainant had no surviving grievances to the effect that there were defects in the house.

THE complainant pointed out that while the case was pending before the State Commission on 17th April, 1990 Shri Alok Kumar, Counsel for the D.D.A. had stated that so far as the complaint in respect of repairs in the flat were concerned would attend to the problem within a period of 2 -3 months. From the statement it cannot be concluded that Shri Alok Kumar had admitted that the flat required repairs. As the complainant had alleged some defects in the complaint, therefore, Shri Alok Kumar might have made that statement without first confirming if there were actually some defects in the flat or not. The complainant argued that no statement of the Counsel for the Opposite Party was recorded by the State Commission on some later date that no defects existed in the flat. It may be mentioned here that the complaint was dismissed in default and later on restored. It appears that both the parties forgot about the undertaking given on behalf of the D.D.A. on 17th April, 1990 and thus the final order happened to be passed on 27th March, 1991 without referring to that undertaking.

IN view of the above discussion we are of opinion that the complainant had failed to prove that there is any defect in the flat allotted to him and those defects required remedial measures. The complainant has claimed interest at the rate of 24% on the registration amount as well as on the instalments on the ground that possession was delivered to him very late. The State Commission has rightly held that according to the terms of registration the D.D.A. has paid interest at the rate of 7% to the Complainant and he is not entitled to any further interest.

THE case of the complainant is that the cost of the flat is very less and he has been charged more. The consistent view of this Commission has been that pricing of the flat is not within the purview of a consumer dispute. Reference can also made to Gurinder Bedi v. Delhi Development Authority, III (1993) CPJ 404 (NC) and Gujarat Housing Board v. Datania Amrit Lai Fulchand and Anr., First Appeal No. 241 of 1991 decided on 7th October, 1993.

OTHER items of the claim have been dealt with by the State Commission. We have gone through the findings of the State Commission in respect of those items and we do not find any ground to differ with them. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any force in the present appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.