SANTOSH vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

IN the present complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), the case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant being a poor, handicapped widow having minor children, had applied for an "out of turn allotment" of a MIG flat in the year 1986. The said request of the complainant was processed by the O.P. vide file No. F.102(405)86/OTA/NP. Thereafter on 21.6.1989, the complainant made a representation to the Lt. Governor, Delhi and the latter recommended for the allotment of a MIG flat, preferably in Rohini, Sector 7-8, on the Ground Floor, as the complainant was handicapped. IN pursuance of the said order of the Lt. Governor, Delhi, the O.P. allotted a flat to the complainant in 1989, though the intimation of the same was sent to the complainant only in September, 1991. On receiving the allotment letter of O.P. dated 12.9.1991, the complainant persued the matter with the O.P. and thereafter in July, 1992, the O.P. sent a demand letter to the complainant wherein the total cost of the flat demanded was Rs. 1,74,400/-. The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that since the flat in question was allotted to the complainant in the year 1989, the cost of the same should have been fixed at the rates prevailing in the said year and not on the basis of price prevailing in the year 1992, i.e. the date of communication of the demand-cum-allotment letter. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the prayer for directions to the O.P. to place before this Commission, the ''pricing formula'' to the basis of which the price of the flat offered to her has been fixed; to direct the respondent to allot a MIG category flat in Sector 7-8 on the Ground Floor as per the orders of the Lt. Governor; to direct the O.P. to explain as to why the demand letter was not issued to the complainant in the year 1989 itself and to declare the price fixed for a similar flat in 1989 and has also prayed for the cost of the present proceedings.

THE O.P. in its reply/written version has controverted the case of the complainant. It has been stated by the O.P. that on the representation of the complainant, the Lt. Governor, Delhi, had approved the allotment of a LIG flat to the complainant in the year 1989 and accordingly O.P. had allotted a LIG flat No. 6 Sector-2, Pocket-6, Rohini, Delhi to the complainant, in the draw of lots held in November, 1989. After the said allotment the complainant had made another representation to the Lt. Governor, Delhi for the allotment of a MIG flat, concealing the factum of earlier allotment of a LIG flat. THE Lt. Governor however, recommended the same in favour of the complainant but when the matter was processed by the competent authority, it was decided that the LIG flat already allotted to the complainant be given to her and, therefore, a letter dated 12.9.1991, intimating the said allotment, was duly sent to the complainant. THE O.P. has also stated in its reply/written version that the delay in intimating the allotment of LIG flat to the complainant, as well as, the issuance of a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 13.7.1992, was occasioned on account of the fact that the complainant had been making representations even after the allotment of the flat to her, as such the processing of the said representations took some time, resulting in the delay in communication of the allotment. Furthermore, on account of the representations of the complainant, the costing details were obtained from the Accounts Wing of O.P. and thereafter the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to her. As such the price of the flat being charged from the complainant is in accordance with the pricing policy of the O.P. i.e. on "no profit no loss basis", and there being no deficiency in service on its part the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the reply/written version of the O.P. in which the contents of the complaint have been reiterated and those of the written version have been denied. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits. The complainant has filed her own affidavit whereas the affidavit of Ms. Asma Manzar, Director Housing, DDA has been filed on behalf of O.P.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the documents/material and evidence on record, as well as, the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties. We have also heard the arguments addressed by the Counsel for the O.P. However none was present on behalf of the complainant at the time of arguments. The O.P. has in its written submissions raised the objection that the complainant is not a ''consumer'', inasmuch as, no consideration has been paid by her to the O.P., as the complainant has neither paid any registration fee nor the price of the flat, allotted to her and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected on the said ground alone. The O.P. was directed by this Commission to place on record an affidavit to the above effect. In compliance of the said orders dated 13.3.2001, the O.P. has filed an affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Ahuja, Director (H) II, DDA, stating therein that the complainant is not registered with the DDA/OP under any scheme and has also not paid any amount either towards registration charges or as the cost of the flat. As such, in view of the fact that the complainant was not registered in any scheme with the O.P. and the allotment of flat was also made to her on "out of turn basis", on compassionate grounds, on the direction of the LG, for which the complainant has neither paid any amount towards the cost of the flat nor any registration charges, therefore, the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act since payment of ''consideration'' is an essential ingredient of the definition of a ''Consumer'' under the Act.

EVEN on merits the complainant has sought the reliefs which do not fall within the purview of the Act. The complaint has challenged the pricing formula/costing of the flat allotted to her and has also prayed for the change of category of flat. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as well as, the Hon''ble National Commission in a catena of decision that the question of pricing of a flat cannot be adjudicated upon by redressal agencies under the Act. Furthermore the complainant has been allotted a LIG flat on compassionate grounds, on the direction of the Lt. Governor on out of turn basis, as such, the prayer of the complainant for directions to the O.P. to allot her a MIG category flat cannot be aceeded to, since the complainant is not registered with the DDA for any particular scheme or category of flat. EVEN for the flat allotted to her on ''out of turn basis'', the complainant instead of paying the cost of the flat has challenged the price of the same fixed by O.P. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the present complaint being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed accordingly however in the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

HOWEVER, before parting with the matter, we may express our sympathy with the complainant who is a handicapped person and a widow and as such we hope that her case may be considered sympathically in her favour by the concerned authorities of the O.P. Complaint dismissed.