NAND LAL KHOSLA vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 8.9.1999, passed by District Forum No. II in Complaint Case No. 2236/1995 - entitled Sh. Nand Lal Khosla v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the brother of the appellant, by name Sh. Ashok Khosla got himself registered with the respondent/DDA for allotment of a MIG flat on hire purchase basis and on the death of his brother the above said registration was transferred in the name of his mother Smt. Vidhyawati Khosla. It was stated in the complaint by the appellant that the respondent/DDA issued an allotment letter on 13.7.1984 and in compliance of the directions of respondent/DDA said Smt. Vidhyawati Khosla deposited a sum of Rs. 50,942/- with the respondent/DDA on 24.8.1993. It was averred that the balance amount towards the cost of the flat was to be paid in 84 monthly instalments. Said Smt. Vidhyawati Khosla expired on 23.1.1990 and by virtue of a Will left by her, the rights in the flat were transferred in the name of the appellant on 7.11.1991. It was stated in the complaint that as the possession of the flat was not given by the respondent/DDA and the respondent/DDA had raised a further demand of Rs. 1,70,307/-, the appellant filed a complaint in this Commission and this Commission passed orders on 20.8.1993 in Complaint Case No. C-19/1992. THE Commission in the above said case, as per the case of the appellant, directed that the possession of the flat be delivered to the appellant besides interest on the amount deposited by the appellant with the respondent/DDA. THE possession of the flat in question was delivered on 28.12.1994. It was stated in the complaint by the appellant that earlier the possession of flat No. 28-A, which was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, was given to one Sh. J.N. Yadav whose flat, bearing No. 67-A, Pkt. A-10, in Kalkaji Extn. Area had developed major cracks in the year 1988. It was further stated that after the decision of this Commission, the above said flat bearing No. 28-A in Pkt. A-10, Kalkaji Extn. was got vacated and the possession was handed over to the appellant on 28.12.1994. It was averred that after taking the possession of the flat the appellant contacted the M.C.D. for water connection and the M.C.D. raised a Bill for Rs. 511/- on account of arrears of water tax and a Bill for Rs. 30,468/- on account of House tax. It was alleged in the complaint by the appellant that the appellant was not liable to pay the above said amount to the M.C.D. However, the appellant paid the arrears of water charges amounting to Rs. 511/- in order to obtain water connection. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum the appellant had prayed for the grant of following reliefs : (a) to direct respondent No. 1 to pay to the complainant Rs. 511/- as compensation against unpaid water charges relating to period prior to the date of delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant, which he was forced to pay to get water supply/connection for his flat; (b) to direct respondent No. 1 to pay to the complainant, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- being equivalent to six months'' rental value of the flat during which period the complainant remained unable to occupy the flat; (c) to direct respondent No. 1 to pay to the complainant, a sum of Rs. 30,460/- in respect of pre-existing house tax liability relating to the period prior to 28.12.1994; (d) to direct respondent No. 1 to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation against physical hardship and mental harassment suffered by the complainant; (e) to grant costs of this litigation; or (f) to pass any other order which may be just, fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.

The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was contested by the respondent/DDA, who filed a written statement/written version taking certain preliminary objection. On merits, it was stated in the written statement/written version that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the respondents were also not liable to pay anything to the appellant.

THE learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint, filed by the appellant, vide order dated 8.9.1999, being impugned in the present proceedings. THE operative portion of the impugned order, runs as under : "So far as the question of payment of water charges of Rs. 511/- is concerned it is obvious that the water was utilized by Sh. J.N. Yadav. D.D.A. cannot be expected to have recovered water charges from Sh. J.N. Yadav. Written statement in this case was filed as back as May, 1996. THE complainant had filed even a rejoinder in January, 1997. THE objection of non-joinder of parties was duly taken in the written statement. We feel that it was the duty of the complainant to have impleaded the M.C.D. and Sh. J.N. Yadav as defendant (opposite parties) in the complaint which he did not. In fact for the recovery of this amount no liability can be fastened on the D.D.A. for the reasons that the pendency of the water charges bill could have never come to the notice of the D.D.A. till the matter was brought to their notice by the complainant himself. For this amount the better course for the complainant should have been to file a suit for recovery from Sh. J.N. Yadav who was a licensee in possession of the flat during the period for which water charges bill was raised. We, therefore, reject the complaint for the recovery of this amount. So far as the house tax is concerned we doubt if even Sh. J.N. Yadav could be held liable to pay the same for the period he was in this flat for the reasons that this flat was allowed to be occupied by him because the flat allotted to him had developed cracks and needed reconstruction. Without commenting much on this aspect as it will be a matter between the D.D.A. and Sh. J.N. Yadav to our mind it is certain that at least the complainant cannot be held liable to make the payment of the house tax till the date the possession of the flat was handed over to him i.e. 28.12.1994. To this extent we are of the view that the D.D.A. was bound to have delivered the possession of the house without any encumbrances. We, therefore, direct the opposite party to sort out the matter of payment of house tax till 28.12.1994 directly with the M.C.D. THE complainant should however, pay the house tax after 28.12.1994 to the concerned authorities as per rules. Since the claim of the complainant regarding water charges is being dismissed and considering that there has been no tangible harassment for the house tax charges we do not propose to grant any compensation to the complainant. Complaint is accordingly disposed of rejecting the claim for recovery of water charges and directing the opposite party i.e. D.D.A. to settle the house tax matter with the M.C.D. and further directing the complainant to make the payment of house tax if any, with the M.C.D. after 28.12.1994. THE parties are left to bear their own costs."

In our opinion, in the given facts, the findings of the learned District Forum, as recorded in the above order, suffer from no infirmity and call for no interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.