SANJIV CHAKRAVARTY vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-Opposite party

THE above mentioned complaints have been filed by the complainants under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). THE above mentioned complaints have been filed by the members of the same family. Facts of the case are almost the same and the dispute involved is also the same. Hence both these complaints are being decided by this common order.

THE facts of the case are that in Complaint Case No. C-76/1995 Shri Sanjiv Chakravarty got himself registered for a Category III flat under the 6th Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1985 of the O.P. DDA by depositing Rs. 15,000/- vide receipt No. 009751 dated 24.7.1985. However, the complainant Shri Sanjiv Chakravarty was never offered any Category III flat (semi-finished) even after 10 years. Similarly in Complaint Case No. C-60/1995 Shri Ranjeet Chakravarty got himself registered under the same scheme and deposited Rs. 15,000/- vide receipt No. 005259 dated 23.7.1985. It is stated that the O.P. DDA had offered the semi-finished flats under the scheme for categories II and III at a cost which was expected to be 30% less than the cost of finished flats. It was also mentioned in the booklet issued by the O.P. DDA that the first lot of flats was to be released for allocation soon after the closure of the registration on 24.7.1985. As per para II of the booklet the flats were to be offered in various parts of Delhi including South Delhi. Rs. 15,000/- for registration for Category III were required as registration fee which both the complainants deposited. THE scheme of payment as laid down in the booklet vide para X is as follows: (a) 25% (including the amount paid as registration deposit) as initial deposit on allotment/allocation; (b) 20% after six months; (c) 25% after next six months; (d) 20% after next six months; and (e) 10% when required to take over possession.

Subsequently, the O.P. DDA modified the terms of payments for flats offered against the 6th Self Finance Housing Registration Scheme. It is alleged on behalf of the complainants that this has caused immense hardship to them due to exorbitant price fixed towards the cost of flats. Moreover, the O.P. DDA subsequently offered only finished flats against the registration in various localities and also gave notice for cancellation of registration under the 1985 6th Self Finance Housing Registration Scheme, if the modified offer was not accepted. It is also stated by complainant Shri Ranjeet Chakravarty that he was employed at Jeddah and after his return from there he has filed this complaint, hence he was delayed in filing the complaint. The complainants claimed Rs. 10 lacs as damages in each case being the loss caused by the increase in the price of flats and interest @ 14% on the amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited with O.P. DDA from the date of deposit till payment. Damages for mental agony and cost of litigation have also been claimed. Complainant Sh. Ranjeet Chakravarty had also prayed that the DDA be directed to allot the Category III flat or an equivalent flat in an area of complainant''s choice charging only escalation without including extortionate amount of interest or land price at current rate.

The complaints have been contested by the O.P. DDA and in the written submissions filed by the O.P. DDA it has been admitted that in brochure it is mentioned that semi-finished flats would also be offered and that the expected cost of semi-finished flat approximately would be 30% less than the cost of finished flat. It is also stated that after the brochure was released and after considering response from the applicants/registrants the proposal of offer semi-finished flat was considered afresh by the concerned authority and a policy decision was taken and in pursuance thereto finished flats were allotted. It is further stated that as per Clause 16, Sub-clause (2) the DDA has a right to alter any of the terms and conditions in its discretion if and when considered necessary. It is further stated that after the flats were allotted and the opportunities were afforded it was decided to close the scheme. However, before the close of the scheme, the remaining registrants/applicants were informed and all those registrants who applied for the allocation were allotted flats. It is stated that the applicants are entitled to only 7% interest per annum on the registration amount and the interest is payable till the closure of the scheme to any registrant who has not been allotted any flat. According to the O.P. DDA the list released in respect of the allocation made between 3rd January, 1995 and 21st January, 1995. O.P. also asserted that when application for allocation of flat is invited, the estimated disposal cost of the flat is also intimated either in the brochure or in the allotment letter. It is always open to the registrant/allottee to either accept or surrender the allocation. The cost of flat increases from time-to-time on account of various reasons such as increase in the cost of acquisition, increase in the cost of material and increase in the cost of construction, etc. and the actual cost which is ascertained on the basis of no profit no loss is demanded from the successful allottees. It has further been stated that cost is no more consumer dispute as held by the Hon''ble National Commission in the case entitled Delhi Development Authority v. A.N. Sehgal, reported as I (1996) CPJ 34 (NC). Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. DDA and both the complaints should be dismissed.

BOTH the parties have filed evidence in the form of affidavit. The complainants have also filed copy of the receipt of deposit of registration amount along with copy of the brochure issued by the O.P. DDA and other documents. We have carefully considered the entire evidence produced from both the parties and have heard the parties in both the complaints. It appears that complainants Sh. Sanjiv Chakravarty and Sh. Ranjeet Chakravarty got themselves registered for semi-finished Category III flats under the 6th Self Finance Housing Registration Scheme, 1985 of DDA and deposited Rs. 15,000/- each as registration amount. However no semi-finished flat was offered to them even after more than 10 years. On the other hand the O.P. DDA dropped the scheme of allotment of semi-finished flats and subsequently offered finished flats to the applicants/registrants who have opted for the same. There is nothing on record to prove that the complainants ever opted for finished flats when the same were offered by the O.P. DDA but after waiting for 10 years they filed the complaint mainly on the grounds that semi-finished flats were not offered to them as per the offer of the O.P. DDA. It has been argued on behalf of the O.P. DDA that as per terms of the brochure the O.P. DDA has right to alter any of the terms and conditions in its discretion if and when considered necessary. Hence when the O.P. DDA decided not to allot semi-finished flats it was perfectly within its right and it cannot be inferred that there was deficiency in service on its part. O.P. offered finished flats to the registrants and the same were allotted to the persons who had opted for it. It appears that the complainants neither opted for the finished flats offered by the O.P. DDA nor applied for the cancellation of the registration and refund of the registration amount. Hence merely because they were not offered semi-finished flats for more than 10 years it cannot be treated as deficiency in service. Similarly if the O.P. DDA decided to withdraw the scheme or to modify it, it cannot be treated as deficiency in service as unless the previous scheme is closed subsequent floated scheme cannot be implemented.

IN view of the above observations we are of the view that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. DDA in not allotting semi-finished flats to the complainants under the 6th Self Finance Housing Registration Scheme. Hence the complainants are not entitled to any relief. However, the O.P. DDA is directed to refund the amount of registration deposited by each of the complainants with interest as per rules after the complainants complete the required formalities. Both the complaints are dismissed with no order as to costs. The above mentioned complaints are disposed of in above terms. Complaints dismissed.