Makhan Lal Bhat vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIKAS SADAN

THIS appeal filed by the original complainant seeks to challenge the order dated 29th August 2008 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ?the State Commission?) in complaint case no. 112 of 2000.

BY the said order, the State Commission held the opposite party ? Delhi Development Authority (in short, ?the DDA?) guilty of deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of a middle income group flat in Jahangir Puri, Delhi, to the complainant, inasmuch the entire cost of the flat having been paid by 25th November 1997, DDA issued the letter of possession only on 16th June 1998 and handed over actual possession of the flat on 14th September 1998. However, the State Commission did not return a clear finding on the principal allegation of the complainant that he had been charged, for his flat, a price higher than that of a similarly situated flat, awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant for delayed delivery of possession and consequential mental agony and harassment, as well as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party ? DDA had come up in appeal before this Commission in FA No. 89 of 2009. By its order dated 17th December 2009, this Commission dismissed the appeal by observing as under:

Mrs.Wadhwa seeks to assail the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission has erred in recording the finding of deficiency in service on the part of the DDA in delaying the delivery of the possession of the flat to the complainant because in the present case, the complainant has also contributed to the delay at least to some extent in as much as he did not submit the duly executed conveyance deed promptly and was not willing to accept the possession when it was offered to him. In any case her submission is that even if there was small delay on the part of the DDA, the State Commission was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for such small delay. On the other hand Rajesh Bhat, son / authorized representative of the complainant-respondent has refuted the contention and urged before us that DDA has charged much higher price from the complainant for the flat as compared to the price it has charged from the allottee of the upper floor. He further contends that compensation so awarded by the State Commission is grossly inadequate and prays that it should be enhanced.

HAVING considered the above submissions, we may observe that we cannot accept the plea of the respondent ? complainant for upgradation of the relief to the complainant because the complainant has not filed any appeal against the impugned order and, therefore, he will be deemed to have accepted the order of the State Commission. In any case, the complainant cannot be allowed to raise a plea in regard to the pricing of the flat in question because he accepted the terms of allotment with open eyes and acted upon it by depositing the entire price as demanded by the DDA and has even taken the possession of the flat in question though after some delay. As regards the plea of the DDA that there is no deficiency on their part in this case, we must reject the same because the delay of al least 6-7 months in the delivery of possession after having received the entire price of the flat in question is writ large in the present case. Having received the entire consideration of the flat, DDA was supposed to act promptly and with due dispatch so as to ensure that possession of the flat was delivered without any delay and all other formalities required in that connection were completed. Having regard to the extent of delay and the resultant loss and injury which must have been occasioned to the complainant, the award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- seems to be quite reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or harsh. We see no ground to interfere in the order of the State Commission?.(Emphasis supplied) 4. It needs to be noticed at the outset that this appeal (No. 2 of 2010) has been filed after an inordinate delay of 425 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the grounds cited are as under: ?That the appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 22.01.1999. The appellant could not file the appeal as immediately after receiving the certified copy of the order of the Hon?ble State Commission, the appellant was taken critically ill, and was confined to bed and was not in a position to engage a lawyer. The appellant was initially on medicines for treatment of unusual feels in the head, which later on turned to be Chronic SDH, only after undergoing MRI on 13.04.2009 and subsequent sensitive neurosurgery at AIIMS on 15.04.2009 and mentioned in follow-up OPD card dated 23.04.2009, which though handled with due care caution, unfortunately further resulted in acute Urinary Tract Infection and was again admitted in Emergency at AIIMS on 24.05.2009, which required administering life saving inter-venous drugs. The review MRI done on 12.09.2009, further revealed Cortical Atrophy with Ischemia. A copy each of MRI report of 13.04.2009, follow-up OPD card dated 23.04.2009, emergency card of AIIMS dated 24.05.2009 and MRI report of 12.09.2009 are annexed. Though in the meantime, during the course of illness appellant received a copy of an appeal from respondent and appellant could not even engage a counsel as he was taken critically ill, and was not in a position to engage a lawyer to defend his interest. That the said appeal was being contested by the appellant through his son, as he could not engage a lawyer and which matter was finally argued and heard before this Hon?ble Commission?.

Prima facie, the grounds do not appear to be tenable because even during the proceedings of appeal No. 89 of 2009 filed by the DDA, the complainant?s case was argued by his son ? Dr Rajesh Bhat. Therefore, the ailment of the complainant around the same time could not be a valid ground of such belated filing of appeal No. 2 of 2010. Moreover, as observed in paragraph 5 of this Commission?s order dated 17.12.2009 (supra), the complainant cannot be allowed to agitate against the pricing of the flat ?because he accepted the terms of allotment with open eyes and acted upon it by depositing the entire price as demanded b y the DDA and has even taken the possession of the flat in question though after some delay?. The appellant has also received the compensation of Rs.1 lakh awarded by the State Commission, an award already confirmed by this Commission?s order dated 17th December 2009.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this highly belated appeal is dismissed as being infructuous.