R.S.SHARMA vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

IT is common ground that the complainant was allotted plot No. 147 through Ambika Co-operative House Building Society by D.D.A. who is the concerned Authority to sanction building plan and grant certificate in forms ''C'' and ''D''. Under the Building By-laws, DDA is competent Authority to sanction building plan as well as to issue certificates in forms ''C'' and ''D'' regarding covering-up underground and drainage and sanitary work. Building permission in the instant case was issued by DDA on 29.4.93 which was revalidated upto 14.1.86. Further admitted case of the parties is that certificate in form ''C'' was issued on 11.2.86. The complainant, in due course, applied for certificate in form ''D'' on 8.4.86. He sent the application in the prescribed form from Srinagar, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, where he was employed as Head of Department of Physics in the Kashmir University, Srinagar. The complainant also obtained Water and Electricity connections and his family actually shifted and occupied the house on 31.7.1986. IT was only on 1988 that the complainant received rejection of the application for certificate in form ''D'', on the grounds (i) that the construction was incomplete, (ii) that the plans were required to be revalidated upto the date of submission of the application, and (iii) peripheral charges amounting to Rs. 920/- were required to be deposited. The complainant resubmitted the application after depositing Rs. 2,000/- in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan on 12.1.88. He deposited the aforesaid amount instead of Rs. 920/- on account of enhancement of the charges; in the meanwhile. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- also included an extra amount of Rs. 194/- in order to meet any other charges required for revalidation of the building plan. The amount of cheque for Rs. 2,000/- was duly encashed and credited to the account of DDA. After more than three and half years of the resubmission, the application was again rejected in August, 1991. The complainant wrote a number of letters to the Commissioner (Land), Joint Director (CS), Vice Chairman, DDA and Dy. Director (CS) in order to find out the amount which he had to deposit in order to have the building permission revalidated and also upto which date but failed to elicit any reply. The dealing clerk informally told him that the complainant''s file had been misplaced and it was, therefore, not possible to intimate to him the exact amount required to be deposited by him. The case of the complainant was that the building was complete in April, 1986. He had deposited the amount before resubmitting the application before February, 1988 and the DDA had failed to intimate the date upto which revalidation of the building permission was required as well as the amount, if any, which was required to be deposited especially having regard to the amount of Rs. 2,000/deposited by him on 12.1.88. The complainant further felt aggrieved by the non-grant of certificate in form ''D'' on the ground that he was unable to commence construction of the first and the second floors and the cost of construction was escalating with the passage of time. Ultimately, the complainant got issued through his Lawyer notice dated 17.4.93 and filed the present complaint in July, ''94. He prayed for a direction, to the OP to issue certificate in form ''D'' as well as completion certificate and to compensate him for escalation in the cost of construction which had taken place in the meanwhile.

IN the written version filed by DDA, it was conceded that for issuing completion certificate, ''D'' form was condition precedent. It was further stated that the application made by the complainant in the first instance had been rejected and the rejection conveyed on 19.6.1986 on the grounds mentioned therein which have been stated in the earlier part of this order. The application was resubmitted on 10.9.88 alongwith requisite fee but the case could not be processed as information regarding depositing peripheral charges was not available on the record in the building section. Ultimately that information was furnished in the building section by the complainant on 2.11.92. Long after rejection had been conveyed to him on 2.8.91. The complainant filed a rejoinder and in support of his complaint, he filed various representations made by him as also his affidavit. Mr. Vijay Rispud, Director (Building), DDA filed affidavit on behalf of the opposite party. We have heard the complainant who argued in person and Mr. S.C. Varshney, Advocate for OP and have carefully gone through the records.

A careful perusal of the written statement filed by the DDA shows that no effort was made to substantiate any of the grounds on which the application for ''D'' form was rejected. In what way was the construction incomplete has not been stated either in the order rejecting the ''D'' form or in the written statement. Even at the hearing, Ld. Counsel for DDA was unable to point out in what way was the construction incomplete. With regard to the charges for the grant of ''D'' form, it is not disputed that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- vide receipted challan dated 12.1.88 duly certified by Central Bank of India. The only reason why the case could not be processed was that the building Branch did not know about the payment. This is consistent with the information formally given by the dealing assistant that the complainant''s file relating to grant of ''D'' form had been misplaced. The complainant moved various authorities in DDA and till date, he has not been informed as to what other formalities he was required to comply with in order to be given form ''D''. It is not disputed that the application was resubmitted on 24.2.88 and it was only in August, 91 that it was again rejected on the grounds, which were not intimated. These facts speak for themselves and there is no manner of doubt that DDA has been grossly deficient in rendering services to the complainant.

THE contention of Mr. Varshney, Ld. Counsel for DDA, is that complainant was not a consumer and grant of certificate in form ''D'' on receipt of prescribed charges did not amount to service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Varshney placed reliance on Paresh Nath Baxi & Anr. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, (1994) 2 SCC 1314 (NC). We have carefully gone through the decision and we find that the same is not applicable to the present case. In Paresh Nath''s case the complainant had applied to Calcutta Municipal Corporation for sanctioning a building plan after payment of prescribed fee and the question arose whether the Municipal Corporation of Calcutta was performing a ''service'' for consideration within the meaning of the Act. It was held that the Corporation was performing a regulatory function and the fee paid by the applicant was to meet administrative and enforcement expenses and did not amount to consideration''. In the facts of the present case, on the other hand, admittedly the plot on which building had been constructed was allotted to the complainant by DDA. THE land having been allotted by DDA and the power to grant building permission, including the grant of certificate in Forms ''C'' and ''D'' being vested with DDA, the aforesaid functions were covered within the ambit of ''service'' as explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC). We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the decision relied upon by Mr. Varshney is not applicable to the present case and the complainant was a consumer. The next contention of Mr. Varshney is that the complaint is barred by limitation. We are unable to see how the complaint is barred by limitation. The rejection was conveyed in August, 1991 and the present complaint instituted in July, 94. The period of limitation prior to the insertion of Section 24(A) in the Consumer Protection Act was taken to be three years. The delay in issuing the ''D'' form was squarely on account of non-action and negligence on the part of DDA and no person can be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the complaint is not barred by limitation.

FOR these reasons, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to issue certificate in form ''D'' as also occupation Certificate regarding the building in question within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, it would meet the ends of justice if the complainant is paid compensation and costs amounting to Rs. 10,000/ -. The said amount shall be paid within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order by DDA failing which the complainant would be entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission to take punitive action under Section 27. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties. Complaint allowed. _______________