LT. COL. L.S. BEDI vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

COMPLAINANT applied for allotment of a flat in the year 1995 and was declared successful in the draw of lot and was issued demand-cum-allotment letter in May, 1995. Inspite of having made payment of Rs. 5,82,155 he was handed over the possession in the District Forum where the original complaint was filed but due to pecuniary jurisdiction the complaint was filed before this Commision. Through this complaint the complainant is seeking interest on the deposit made by him for the period of the possession was delayed.

IT is settled law that unless and until there is term of contract between the parties as to the liability of payment of interest, interest is not awardable. However, the interest can be awarded if there are strong equitable grounds. Otherwise in terms of Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the consumer is entitled to an amount of compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to negligence on the part of the O.P. While explaining the delay in possession the Counsel for the respondent has contended that some of the documents which were required to be furnished by the complainant were furnished on 22.1.1996 and third copy of the challan of the last instalment was furnished on 28.10.1996 whereas the conveyance papers were issued by the O.P. in the year 1999 and complainant furnished the conveyance deed in July, 1999 whereafter the possession was delivered. Even if we go by the facts as pointed out by the O.P. the deficiency in service is writ large as the documents were furnished in the year 1996 including the proof of payment of the last instalment by production of third copy of the challan though it was duty of the O.P. to find out from its own record the details of the payment made by the complainant and received by it.

Any such term and condition of the contract that it is duty of the complainant to furnish the third copy of the challan is unjust and against insurance policy particularly when it evolves method of payment of instalments with the Bank and not directly with the DDA. Consumer is required to make the payment directly to the DDA and through a third agency like Bank then it is the duty of the DDA to update its record of payments received from the challans retained by the Bank. No consumer can be put to disadvantage or jeopardy if he has misplaced or lost the third copy of the challan and taken a categorical plea that he has made the due payment. To shift its responsibility to the consumer is uncalled for and deficiency in service.

IN the given facts and circumstances of the case we find that O.P. is guilty of deficiency in service in not handing over the possession in time and direct the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000 which shall include the cost of litigation. The complaint is disposed of in above terms.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Complaint disposed of.