(Mrs.) POONAM VERMA vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

DR. (Mrs.) Poonam Verma and two others have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The complainants, in the present complaint, are claiming relief on the basis of their registration for Category-III flats under the 5th ''Self Financing Scheme'', floated by the opposite party at the relevant time. It is alleged that the complainants got themselves registered on 11.8.1982 under the above said Scheme for the allotment of a flat after paying the requisite registration fee. It is further alleged that in the month of March, 1994, the O.P. of its own allotted a Category-III flat to each of the complainants in Kondli Garoli for Rs. 6,68,391.25 p. for each flat. The above offer, allotting the flats in the above area, was declined by the complainants. The O.P. thereafter closed that Scheme and refused to consider/include the names of the complainants in other Self Financing Scheme floated by the O.P., after the closure of that 5th Self Financing Scheme. Assailing the action of the O.P., the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum and the District Forum vide common order dated 24.7.1995, passed in Complaint Case No. 189/95 entitled DR. (Mrs.) Poonam Verma v. The Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority; Complaint Case No. 190/95 entitled DR. (Mrs.) Puneeta Mahajan v. The Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority and Complaint Case No. 191/95 entitled Ms. Neerja v. The Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority allowed the complaint, filed by the complainants, and directed the O.P. to keep the registration of the complainants alive and to include their names in all future draw of lots in the localities of their preference so long as flats in such localities were available and were being constructed. The learned District Forum also awarded cost of litigation, amounting to Rs. 1,000/- to each complainant.

FEELING aggrieved, the O.P. filed an appeal (Appeal No. A-490/95 entitled Delhi Development Authority v. Mrs. Poonam Verma and Ors. under Section 15 of the Act before this Commission. This Commission, vide order dated 29.12.1997, passed in above said appeal, has allowed the appeal, filed by the O.P.-DDA and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. This Commission has also held that as a result of setting aside the order passed by the District Forums, the complaint, filed by the complainants, before the District Forum would also stand dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the complainants (Dr. Poonam Verma and others) preferred a Revision Petition before the Hon''ble National Commission (Revision Petition No. 172/1998 entitled Dr. Poonam Verma & Ors v. Delhi Development Authority). The above said revision petition has been dismissed by the Hon''ble National Commission vide order dated 25.11.1999. The operative portion of order dated 25.11.1999, passed by the Hon''ble National Commission, reads as under: "The appeals are dismissed. However, the petitioners will be entitled to get back the amount deposited with the DDA for registration of their names in the 5th Scheme with interest @ 7% from the date of deposit to the date of repayment. They will be entitled to get themselves registered in any new scheme that may be floated by DDA in accordance with law."

Feeling aggrieved, the complainants have filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon''ble Supreme Court which was not admitted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court which fact is evident from the averments made by the complainants in para 4 of the complaint.

FROM the narration of the above facts, it is apparent that on the same facts and for the same cause of action, the complainants earlier had filed separate complaints (Complaint Case No. 189/95, Complaint Case No. 190/95 and Complaint Case No. 191/95) before the District Forum and the matter in respect of those complaints finally stands adjudicated by the Hon''ble National Commission vide order dated 25.11.1999, passsed in Revision Petition No. 172/98 entitled Dr. Poonam Verma & Ors v. Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority. As per complainant''s own case, the Special Leave Petition, filed in the Hon''ble Supreme Court, against the above order of the Hon''ble National Commission has not been admitted. In the presence of the above facts, the present complaint, filed by the complainants, which has been filed on the same facts and on the same cause of action is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. However, before concluding we would like to make it clear that the dismissal of the present complaint would not operate to the prejudice of the complainants in pursuing any other remedy that may be available to them in accordance with law for the time being in force.

THE above mentioned complaint, filed by the complainants, stands disposed of in above terms. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties, free of charge, and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Complaint dismissed.