MURARI LAL SHARMA vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where his complaint was dismissed - hence this appeal.

THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant registered himself under a scheme floated by the respondent in 1979 for an M.I.G. flat. A flat was allotted to him in March, 1984 in Dilshad Garden, upon which he applied for a change of location for personal reasons. Consequent to the request a flat was allotted in August, 1989 at a new location in Mayur Vihar, payment of which was to be made in lumpsum. Appellant requested that the mode of payment be changed to fall under hire-purchase scheme which was done in January, 1991 and possession of the flat was taken in September, 1991. After taking possession of the flat a complaint was filed by the appellant before the State Commission seeking four reliefs : (i) cost of original flat was Rs. 42,000/- and now the price of flat being demanded at new location is Rs. 2,72,700/- whereas similarly placed people have been charged lesser price hence old price be charged, (ii) no interest has been paid on Rs. 29,958/- lying deposited with the respondent since May, 1985, that be awarded, (iii) an amount of Rs. 30,858/- with interest has been demanded by the respondent against the first allotment made in 1985, which flat was never occupied by him, this be refunded to him with interest, and (iv) respondent has charged Rs. 7,500/- as ''change charges'' against Rs. 1,000/- prevailing in 1985, hence the balance be got refunded. After hearing the parties the State Commission allowed the complaint only to the extent that Rs. 30,858/- deposited by the appellant for charges relating to the first allotment, was ordered to be refunded with interest @ 12% p.a. Other prayers/relief were not granted as not being maintainable, hence the appeal. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent has over-charged him on the price of alternative flat. Originally the price of the flat was Rs. 42,000/- whereas the price being charged is over Rs. 2.72 lakh. This is a consumer dispute and the State Commission erred in not exercising its jurisdiction in this regard. As held by Consumer Forums, the State Commission should have awarded interest for the amount of 29,958/- lying with the respondent. Change charges should have been charged at the rates prevailing in 1985 and not the latest. State Commission erred in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and thus failed to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in it by law.

We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no dispute that the appellant was allotted an MIG Flat in Dilshad Garden in 1985. He first battled to convert the payment scheme from lumpsum to hire purchase, once this was done then he moved the respondent to change the location to where there are CGH facilities mainly on account of family problem. Again he was allotted a flat in 1989 at an alternative site. Now to expect the flat at new site in 1991 at the same tentative price of Rs. 42,000/- in 1985 does not appear to be a correct perception of the way, housing activity is conducted by the respondent. It is settled law that the Consumer Forum cannot go into the question of pricing hence in our view State Commission acted as per law on the subject in this regard and rightly did not go into the question of pricing of flat. As far as grant of interest on the deposited amount is concerned, we would have gladly awarded the interest in favour of the appellant, but on equity, the respondent would also be entitled to interest on the delayed payments to the respondent. On balance we find that in our view, State Commission rightly did not consider the prayer of the appellant. On the third point of change charges, we see no merit in the argument of the appellant that rate of charges should have been as were prevailing in 1985, even when he got allotment of the flat in 1989 and took its possession in 1991. The charging of current change charges by the respondent cannot be faulted. Keeping in view the above discussion, we see no merit in the appeal filed by the complainant, hence dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.