MANOHAR KHOSLA vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

IN this complaint, filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), it is averred by the complainant that he got himself registered for a LIG flat under the registration scheme on new pattern (NPRS) 1979, floated by the O.P. It is stated that at the time of registration, it was represented by the O.P. that the tentative cost of the flat to be allotted to him would be about Rs. 18,000/- whereas he had been allotted a flat after a lapse of almost 19 years in January, 1999 for Rs. 4,45,600/- with the option to pay on cash down basis or by instalments, on hire-purchase basis. The complainant had represented accordingly to the O.P. against the cost of the flat and the inordinate delay in allotment of the flat but since no response was received from the O.P. the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Commission praying for directions to the O.P. to allot him a flat at the original cost of Rs. 18,000/- as per terms and conditions of registration, along with Rs. 7 lacs as compensation as well as directions to the O.P. to cancel the allotment of flats converted into Power of Attorney in the LIG category of NPRS Scheme, 1979.

THE O.P. in its reply/written version has raised several preliminary objections that the present complaint is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant himself has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment; that the dispute involved in the complaint is not amenable to the jurisdiction of a redressal agency, established under the Act and is exclusively triale by a Civil Court; that the complainant is not a ''consumer'' and has not availed of any ''service'' from the O.P. in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such the complaint does not involve a ''consumer dispute''. On merits it is stated by the O.P. that the complainant had registered himself under the NPRS Scheme, 1979 floated by the O.P. and about 1.7 lakh people had got themselves registered in the said scheme and since it was not possible at that time to construct and allot flats to all the registrants at one go, therefore, a priority list of the registrants of different categories was prepared separately and the allotment of flats was thereafter made on the basis of said priority list. THE complainant was allotted a LIG flat bearing No. 94, Pocket 1, Sector 6, Type B-1, Ground Floor in Dwarka in the draw of lots held on 16.11.1998 vide Demand-cum-allotment letter dated 22.12.1998-30.12.1998. In terms of the said demand letter, the total disposal cost of the flat was Rs. 4,45,600/- and the complainant was required to make payment of confirmation deposit of Rs. 15,000/- latest by 29.1.1999 and a sum of Rs. 1,66,584.85 p. on 31.12.1998-10.1.1999 or a sum of Rs. 1,67,417.77 by 30.1.1999-13.2.1999 or Rs. 1,68,250.69 p. by 14.2.1999-28.2.1999 or Rs. 1,69,500/- by 1.3.1999-15.3.1999 or Rs. 1,70,749.46 p. latest by 16.3.1999-30.3.1999 and after 30.3.1999 there was an automatic cancellation. THE complainant, however, failed to make the payment despite the issuance of notice dated 30.3.1999 and 22.6.1999 as such the allotment of the flat, as well as, the registration for the same stood cancelled automatically on account of non-payment of demanded amount within the prescribed period. Furthermore, the cost of the flat as indicated in the brochure for the NPRS Scheme, 1979 was only tentative and it was specifically mentioned in Clauses 13 and 14 of the said brochure that the prices indicated were tenative and did not represent the final cost of the flat. Furthermore, the final cost of the flat allotted to the complainant had been worked out on the basis of the approved pricing policy of the O.P. based on ''No Profit No Loss Basis" keeping in view the various factors of construction like cost of land, labour, building material, design/drawing/plinth area, development, etc. As such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and the complaint, filed by the complainant was liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act as being false, frivolous. The complainant filed a rejoinder denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating those of the complaint. Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. The complainant filed his own affidavit by way of evidence whereas on behalf of the O.P., affidavit of Shri Amar Chatterjee, Director Housing, DDA was filed.

We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties at length. The first relief claimed by the complainant is that the O.P. be directed to allot to him a flat at the cost of Rs. 18,000/- in terms of brochure of the NPRS, 1979. It is, however, settled law by now that the Redressal Agencies, established under the Act, have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to pricing of a flat or plot. The Hon''ble National Commission in case of Shri A.N. Sehgal v. DDA, reported as 1986-96 Consumer 3219 (NS), as well as catena of other decisions has held that a dispute relating to the pricing of flat or plot does not fall within the four corners of the Act, 1986 and as such cannot be adjudicated upon by a Redressal Agency, established under the Act. As such the complainant is not entitled to the said relief.

THE other contention of the complainant is that he had been allotted a flat after a considerable delay of 19 years because the O.P. had been changing the terms and conditions of registration by allotting flats on the basis of priority in registration but by draw of lots. Furthermore, the O.P. had also floated new schemes and had given out-of-turn allotments to various categories of persons despite the fact that registrants of 1979 Scheme were still awaiting allotment. So far as the said contention of the complainant is concerned, it has been categorically stated by the O.P. in its reply/written version as well as the affidavit of Shri Amar Chatterjee, Director Housing, DDA that about 1.7 lakh people got themselves registered in 1979 Scheme for LIG and HIG flats along with complainant. As and when the flats were constructed, the same were allotted to the registrants on the basis of the priority list prepared by the O.P. However, the allotment of specific flat was made by way of draw of lots. Clause 9 of the Brochure also specifically states that the allotment of flats under the Scheme would be by seniority, however, the specific flat would be allotted by draw of lots. Thus, the complainant has been unable to prove that he has been discriminated against and has not been allotted a flat on the basis of the priority list prepared by the O.P. Furthermore, merely because the respondent/DDA had floated other schemes and made out of turn allotments to special category of persons does not constitute deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. In fact the appellant in his own turn has been allotted a flat in Dwarka which has been cancelled on account of non-payment, in terms of demand-cum-allotment letter, by the complainant himself and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. so as to entitle the complainant to any compensation, in this regard. As regards the relief claimed by the complainant for directions to the O.P. to cancel all the allotments of flats sold on Power of Attorney is concerned, the said relief also cannot be granted in terms of Section 14 of the Act and as such is beyond the purview of jurisdiction of this Commission under the Act.

ACCORDINGLY, the present complaint, filed by the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost of the proceedings. Before concluding we would like to make it clear that the dismissal of the present complaint would not act to the prejudice of the complainant in claiming refund of the amount deposited by him and on such a request being made by the complainant the same would be entertained by the O.P. as per its policy. Complaint dismissed.