R.S.Yadav vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

APPLICANT, Shri R.S. Yadav has filed an application for compensation under Section 12-B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (for Act for brief) stating that he applied for allotment of an MIG flat under the New Pattern Housing Registration Scheme, 1979 launched by the respondent and paid Rs. 4,500/- by way of application money. It has been further stated that he was registered at serial No. 34348 as an intending purchaser of a flat and a certificate of registration dated the 13th June, 1990 was issued to him. It has been mentioned that he was successful in the draw which was held by the respondent on the 7th August, 1996, for allotment of flats, and he was allotted MIG Flat No. 21-C in Kondali Gahroli, Phase-II and thereafter he was asked in November, 1996 to pay an amount of Rs. 6,34,359.25 as final consideration towards its cost within 90 days. It has also been mentioned by him that he had to borrow Rs. 2,00,000/- from SBI Home Finance Ltd. @ 16% and he also took loan from his employer in order to pay the full amount of Rs. 6,34,360/- so that he may get the possession of the flat and use it for his residential purposes. It has been further stated that it was stipulated in the offer of allotment that if the deposit was not made by 11th January, 1997, interest @ 12% for the first month and @ 18% for the subsequent month would be charged and the allotment was also liable to be cancelled. It was also stipulated that the possession of the flat was to be handed over within 15 days from the date of presenting the possession letter issued by the respondent. The grievance of the application is that even after making the full and final payment and on his presenting the possession letter, the possession of the flat was delayed considerably as the flats were incomplete and not ready for possession.

IT has been complained by him that in December, 1997 he was advised to approach the site office at Kondali Gahroli where he was required to give an affidavit that he would take possession of the flat without water and electricity connection and would not approach any Judicial Forum/Consumer Court for any claim against the respondent for handing over possession of the flat without water and electricity. IT has been further complained by him that he has been deprived of the use of the flat even though he paid the full amount and he should be compensated by the respondent by paying to him interest @ 24% on the full amount paid towards the cost of the flat and also for the expenses incurred by him on litigation as well as the loss sustained by him on account of rental income whch would have accrued if the flat could be let out from of the date of possession till the date when water and electricity were made available. In reply, it has been stated on behalf of the respondent that while the construction of the flats was the responsibility of the respondent, water and electricity connections were to be provided by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) respectively and although the requisite amounts were deposited by the respondent with MCD and DVB, there was delay on their part in providing the necessary connections.

On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed. (i) Whether the respondent has been indulging in the restrictive trade practices alleged in the CA ? (ii) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage as alleged in the CA ? (iii) If so, the compensation which the applicant is entitled to ?

THE applicant filed his affidvait of evidence. THE respondent was also given an opportunity to file its counter affidavit of evidence but the respondent failed to tender the counter affidavit of evidence. However, in the larger interest of justice, a copy of the order passed on 4.5.1999 was sent to the Vice-Chairman of the respondent so that the respondent was represented at the time of final hearing which was fixed on 13.8.1999. On that date, one, Mr. Inderbeer Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondent but he was unable to address any arguments, as according to him, he did not have access to the relevant record and was not prepared for arguments. As in spite of the fact that sufficient time had been given to the respondent, its Advocate did not come prepared and as there was no grounds for showing any more indulgence to the respondent, particularly when the Vice-Chairman of the respondent had been apprised by RPAD of the order passed on 4.5.1999 and the respondent was aware that in case the respondent was not represented on 13.8.1999, ex parte arguments would be heard and the case would be decided on that basis. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and perused the relevant record. The case of the applicant is that he applied for a MIG flat under the New Pattern Housing Registration Scheme, 1979 and he was allotted an MIG flat in Kondali Gahroli and he deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 6,34,360/- towards the final consideration of the flat. These facts are not disputed or denied by the respondent. It is also not disputed that the flats in Kondali Gahroli including the one offered to the applicant were without water and electricity connections even when the possession was given after a delay of nearly a year from the date of final payment by the applicant. In modern times of civilized existence, it is really inconceivable that a person should be expected to occupy a flat or a house which does not have basic amenities of water and electricity supply, more so, when the authority offering the flats is a Govt. undertaking and that too, after accepting its full cost. While, on the one hand, the respondent demands full payment of Rs. 6,34,360/- from the applicant and imposes stiff penalties such as interest @ 12% for the first month of delay and 18% for subsequent month and even cancellation of the allotment in case of default by the allottee, it hands over possession of the MIG flats after delay of one year and that too, without providing water and electricity connections and thereafter does not compensate the allottees, like the applicant in any manner.

FIRST of all, when the flats are not complete and the flats can''t be considered to be complete and fit for human habitation without water and electricity connections, full payment and that too, in a short span of a few months should not have been demanded and accepted by the respondent. And as it happens in this case, if it has been accepted, interest on the amount by way of compensation should be paid by the respondent to the allottees who have arranged the amount so demanded from them by borrowing from Banks, Provident Fund or other sources. It can''t be gainsaid that loan is not interest free and can be taken at a cost in terms of interest. The fact that the allottees of MIG flats are persons belonging to the middle income group as the nomenclature of the flats itself suggests can''t be denied and, therefore, there is a duty cast upon the respondent to provide dwelling units to them at reasonable and affordable prices and within the specified time schedule. The respondent can''t disown its responsibility towards the allottees by passing the buck to MCD and DVB as while demanding and accepting full payment, it is expected to deliver to the allottees early if not immediate possession of the flats. Its failure to do so would be tantamount to restrictive and unfair trade practices and would attract the relevant provisions of the Act. In fact, it stands to reason that if the respondent demanded full and final payment from the applicant/allottee within the specified time schedule, it has a corresponding obligation to give the possession of the flats within a reasonable time frame. As in the case of delay in payments, on the part of the applicants/allottees, there is a liability to pay interest, there should be a similar obligation on the part of the respondent to pay interest in case of delay in handing over the possession of flat. The case of the applicant is that he is an employee of the Govt. of NCT, Delhi and he had to borrow money and it is a matter of common knowledge that a loan from a Bank or a financial institution is subject to payment of interest. The case of the applicant is that he has borrowed Rs. 2 lacs @ 16% interest. It appears fair that the applicant should be compensated and the respondent should pay interest @ 16% to the applicant for the entire period of delay in haning over the possession of the flat and the period it remained without water and electricity connections even after its possession had been delivered to the applicant. The respondent is directed to work out the interest amount and pay the same as compensation in addition to the cost of the present litigation computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Compliance of this order may be made within six weeks from the date of its receipt. C.A. disposed of.