NATHU SINGH vs HOUSING COMMISSIONER OF D.D.A.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant got himself registered in RPS Category in 1985 Scheme. He was allotted a flat bearing No.2l Sector 4, Pocket-8, Ground Floor in Rohini on cash down basis. He deposited an amount of Rs. 1.43,298/-. Later he was informed that his flat had been cancelled by the D.D.A. in October, 1988 on the ground that he was not eligible to apply for it. He made a representation to the Lt. Governor, who accepted the same. In pursuance of the order of the Lt. Governor he was allotted a flat No.23/E-1/7 Sector 15, Rohini, in the draw held in 1991. An allotment-cumdemand letter dated 18th May, 92 was issued after the allotment of the new flat, demanding from him Rs. 2,33,150/- after adjusting the amount already deposited by him. He has filed the complaint that he is entitled to get the flat on the old price. 2.The complaint has been contested by the opposite party. It is inter-alia admitted by them that in the draw held on 15.5.88, he was allotted a flat. He deposited an amount of Rs. 1,28,098.40 in pursuance of demand-cum-allotment letter within the scheduled period. However, it was detected later that he got the registration on production of the documents which pertained to the State Government service, whereas the Scheme was exclusively for the Central Government employees. 3.It is further pleaded that the complainant is a retired Head Master from a school in U.P. and was not eligible for the flat under the said scheme. Consequently, his allotment was cancelled. His representation was accepted by the Hon''ble Lt. Governor on 16th October, 1989. Accordingly he was reallotted a flat in the draw held on 19th November, 1991. The price of the flat which is being demanded from him was the prevailing price when the flat was allotted to him. 4. The main question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to the allotment of the flat at the price prevailing in 1988. There is no dispute about the facts of the case. The complainant was not eligible to apply for the flat in the 1985 Scheme. However, he made an application and was allotted a flat which was cancelled later. He in our opinion cannot take benefit of that allotment as he was not eligible to apply in that Scheme. He has been allotted this flat under order of the Lt. Governor, in 1992. Therefore, he is liable to pay the same price of the flat which was prevailing in 1992. We hold accordingly. 5. Faced with this situation the learned Counsel for the complainant sought to argue that he deposited an amount of Rs. 1,43,298.40 in 1988 and the opposite party utilised that amount upto 1992. He is entitled to interest on that amount from 21.9.88 till 18.5.92 when the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him. We find force in this submission of the Counsel. The complainant is liable to pay the price of the flat as existed in May, 1992. His amount of Rs. 1,43,000/- and odd was not returned by the opposite party and thus he was deprived of the-use of that amount. Consequently, he is entitled to get interest on that amount. The rates of interest have gone high. In the facts and circumstances of this case we think that the complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% P.A. The amount of interest comes to Rs.63,397.00 as detailed in Annexure ''A''. 6. For the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the complaint and direct the respondent to pay interest to the complainant amounting to Rs. 63,397.00 and adjust that amount towards the price of the flat within three months. In case they fail to do so action shall be taken against them under Section 27of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of the partial success of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Complaint partly accepted.