NITYA PRAKASH JAIN vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant got himself registered with the respondent under ''Registration Scheme of New Pattern, 1979'' for purchase of a flat under Middle Income Group and was registered at S.No.17088. He deposited an amount of Rs. 4,500/-. He was allotted a MIG flat in Block J & K, Dilshad Garden, Delhi vide Demand-cum-allotment letter dated 6.9.90. The respondent required him to deposit an amount of Rs.1 86,402,59 after adjustment of the registration fee, by 5.11.90.

AFTER receiving the allotment letter on 10.9.90, he visited the site on 13.9.90 and found that the flat had already been allotted to one Mr. Grover, who had been residing there with his family for the last over three years. He was informed by the officials at the site that Mr. Grover was a lawful allotted of the flat. He then made an application dated 14.9.90 to the Dy. Director (Housing) for allotting him an alternative flat in the same locality. However, he deposited the balance amount on 5.11.90. He also complied with other formalities required to be done by the respondent. Later in the second week of May''91 he was informed by the Dy. Director (H) that he had been allotted flat No.l2-B, Pocket ''A'' in Nand Nagri, Delhi as the allotment of flat in block J & K, Dilshad Garden, Delhi was a case of double allotment. He made representations to the Vice-Chairman, DDA and the Lt. Governor, Delhi to allot to him a flat in Dilshad Garden or in Mayur Vihar. However, it was not done. He again wrote a letter to the Dy. Director (H) that in case it was not possible for him to allot a flat in Dilshad Garden or in Mayur Vihar then at least he should be given a flat in Pocket ''F'' instead in Pocket ''A'' in Nand Nagri.

The complainant, thereafter received another Demand-cum-allotment letter dated 7.4.92 intimating him that he had been allotted a flat bearing No.l2-B, Pocket ''A'', Nand Nagri, Delhi at an enhanced cost of Rs. 2,77,400/- and asking him to deposit the difference amounting to Rs. 82,158/- by 6.5.92. He, under protest, deposited the enhanced price on 6.5.92 and made a representation that he was not liable to pay the said amount. Thereafter he was given the possession slip dated 4.6.92 for taking possession of the said flat in Nand Nagri. When he visited the office of the respondent in Nand Nagri on 30.6.92 and contacted the concerned Jr. Engg., he was informed that another letter dated 27.6.89 had been received by him in respect of that flat for delivering possession thereof to one Mr. Manmohan Singh Anand.

THE complainant then met Asstt. Director(H) and appraised him of the development and made a representation dated 2.7.92 to him. THE Asstt. Director(H) directed the Executive Engineer to treat the letter of possession dated 27.6.89 in favour of Mr. Anand cancelled and hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant. Ultimately he was given possession on 31.8.92 which he took under protest. He has consequently prayed that the respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 82,158/-, the difference of the initial cost of the flat and enhanced cost of the flat, interest on the amount of Rs. 82,158/- @ 18% p.a. from 6.5.92, the date of deposit, till 31.8.92, the date of receiving the possession of the flat and interest on Rs. 1,95,200/- @ 18% p.a. from 5.11.90 the date of deposit till 31.8.92 the date of handing over the flat. He has also claimed damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony. A notice was issued to the respondent for 4.11.92. However, no one appeared on their behalf. Mr. Goyal, who normally appeared in the cases of DDA was present in the Court and we directed him to accept service on behalf of the DDA. He requested for an adjournment to file the written statement. Consequently the case was adjourned to 7.12.92. A copy of the paper-book was provided to him. On 7.12.92 Mr. Goyal requested for further adjournment to file the written statement. Inspite of objection by the Counsel for the complainant another adjournment was given to him for written statement and the case was adjourned to 18.12.92. On 18.12.92 again request was made for adjournment by Mr. Goyal and the same was granted subject to the payment of costs. The case was adjourned to 4.1.93. On that date too w.s. was not filed and another adjournment was sought for. In view of the fact that three opportunities had already been given to the respondent to file the w.s., the defence of the respondent was ordered to be struck off. Even the costs awarded on 18.12.92 had not been paid by the Counsel for the respondent to the Counsel for the complainant. The complainant filed an affidavit in support of the complaint and the case was adjourned for arguments. At the time of arguments Mr. B.L. Anand, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and argued the case on the basis of the correspondence placed on the file.

FROM the narration of the facts as given in the complaint it is evident that the two flats were allotted to the complainant, one in Dilshad Garden and the other in Nand Nagri and both times it was a case of double allotment. Ultimately the complainant was delivered possession of the flat on 31.8.92. The first letter of allotment regarding the flat in J & K Block of Dilshad Garden was issued to him on 6.9.90. Thus the respondent took more than two years in allotting and delivering possession of the flat in Nand Nagri to him for which the complainant cannot be held responsible. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the delay in allotment of the flat in Nand Nagri took place for the reason that the complainant had made various representation as, which remained under consideration of the authorities. We do not find any substance in this submission. The respondent should not have taken such a long in deciding the representations and especially when these had ultimately been rejected by the authorities. In case the authorities would have decided the representations expeditiously or delivered the possession of the flat in Nand Nagri pending the decision of the representations to him, that would have saved him from botheration and loss. If the representations had been accepted later, he could be delivered the flat in the area of his choice. The complainant did not obtain any stay order from any Court or authority due to which the delay took place. It was merely due to the red tapes in the office of the respondent that the representations remained pending and possession of the flat was not delivered to him. It is further note-worthy that when the possession of the flat in Nand Nagri was ordered to be delivered to him it was found that flat too had already been allotted to another allotted. It had further delayed the matter for some time. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Anand. Now the question for determination is, to what relief the complainant is entitled to. He had been allotted flat in Dilshad Garden on payment of Rs. 1,86,402,59 which he deposited as directed by the respondent. He also complied with the other formalities required by the DDA. However, that allotment was found to be a case of double allotment. As already held there was no justification on the part of the respondent to delay the allotment of another flat for a period of two years from the date of first allotment. Consequently, in our view, the complainant is entitled to be allotted a flat in dispute at the original price namely Rs. 1,86,402,9 deposited by him. However, he was required to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 82,152/- which he did. Therefore, he is entitled to the refund of the said amount with interest.

THE next question that arises is as to what rate of interest the complainant is entitled to get from the respondent. In Bhag Singh Saini v. Simla Development Authority II (1992) CPJ 1043 the State Commission, Simla has awarded interest @ l8% p.a. to the consumer on the amount deposited for purchase of flat against Simla Development Authority. THE same rate of interest was given in R.K. Ajbani v. Vice Chairman, DDA & Others CLR 1993 (1) Housing 1., by this Commission. It is common knowledge that the rates of interest have gone very high as the money is not available in the market. THE excess amount was got deposited from the complainant by the respondent illegally. Consequently we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to interest @18% p.a. from the respondent on the said amount of Rs. 82,152/-. THE amount of interest from 6.5.92 the date of deposit till 30.9.92 the date of filing the complaint comes to Rs. 5,960/-.

IN case the complainant had been allotted a flat immediately after he had deposited the amount of Rs. 1,95,200/- he would have either occupied the flat himself or started getting the rent. However, he has been deprived of use of the flat for a period of about two years. We, consequently grant him rent of the flat @ Rs. 1000/- permensem from 6.9.90 till 31.8.92, which comes to Rs. 23,800/-. The complainant has also claimed damages for mental tension. We have given interest to the complainant at a high rate and rent of the flat for a period of about 2 years. We think, the claim of the complainant regarding the mental tension is covered in the interest and rent of the house already given by us to him. Thus the total amount which is due to the complainant from the respondent is Rs. 1,11,912/-or say Rs. 1,11,900/-.

For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 1,11,900/- with interest (a) 18% p.a. on the said amount from the date of the complaint till the date of payment within a period of three months failing which an action u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act shall be taken against them. Costs Rs. 2,000/-. Complaint allowed.