Sarla Grover vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 20.04.2012, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 240/2011, ''''Smt. Sarla Grover versus Delhi Development Authority (DDA) '''' and appeal No. FA -216/11, ''''DDA versus Sarla Grover '''', vide which, the appeal of the complainant, FA -240/11 was dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/ - while appeal, FA -216/11 of DDA was allowed and the order dated 08.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in consumer complaint no. 644/2008, directing the DDA to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the complainant, was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant booked a flat with the OP/DDA under the new pattern registration scheme 1979 and paid registration amount of Rs. 4,500/ - on 28.09.79. The OP / DDA allotted flat no. 241, ground floor, sector -12, phase -I, type ''C '' in Dwarka locality on 99 on cash -down basis. The demand -cum -allotment letter dated 13.03.2000 / 17.03.2000 was sent to her by the DDA, saying that the disposal cost of the flat is settled at ''_7,95,800/ - + other allied charges, after adjustment of registration money. The complainant was asked to pay a sum of ''_7,86,506.06ps.+Rs. 20,000/ - as confirmation money by 16.04.2000. The complainant vide letter dated 30.03.2000, requested the OP to change the mode of payment from cash -down basis to hire -purchase basis, but the request was turn down by the OP vide letter dated 19.04.2000. Later on, the allotment of flat was cancelled by the DDA on account of non -payment of dues, and the registration money was refunded with simple interest @10% p.a. and an amount of Rs.13,087/ - was paid to her vide cheque no. 291802 dated 1.2000. The complainant vide letter dated 05.02.2001 wrote to the OP that she was entitled to get compound interest instead of simple interest, but the OP declined to pay the compound interest vide letter dated 27.03.2001. Thereafter, the consumer complaint in question was filed on 10.10.2001. The case was heard and decided by the District Forum twice, but both the times, on appeal, the case was remanded back to the District Forum by the State Commission for deciding the matter afresh. Ultimately, vide order dated 08.03.2011, the District Forum directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - to the complainant as compensation for harassment, including the cost of litigation. Two appeals were filed before the State Commission against this order of the District Forum, which were decided vide impugned order, dismissing the appeal of the complainant with cost of Rs.5000/ - and accepting the appeal of the OP. In the process, the compensation awarded by the District Forum was set aside and it was observed that the OP had already offered payment of compound interest to the complainant which she had declined. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present petition has come up. 3. The authorised representative of the petitioner has submitted written arguments as well as led his oral arguments before us. It has been stated therein, that the DDA have taken the stand that the petitioner had applied for cancellation of allotment and refund of the deposit money, but this version of the OP was not true. He also stated that during proceedings before this Commission, the learned counsel for the OP had stated on 08.04.2013 that the petitioner had applied for cash -down payment, but there was nothing on record to substantiate this version of the OP. The petitioner has referred to the entire correspondence between the petitioner and the OP from time to time and also the information received from the DDA under the Right to Information Act (RTI) Act.

IN reply, learned counsel for the respondent - OP stated that the petitioner failed to make payment in accordance with the allotment letter issued by the OP to her. Their request for conversion of payment from cash -down basis to hire -purchase basis had been rejected by the OP. The petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to any relief and hence, the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and should be sustained.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. In the consumer complaint dated 10.10.2001, it has been stated that the complainant made request to the DDA that she should be allowed to make payments in instalments on hire -purchase basis for the flat allotted to her. The DDA cancelled the allotment and sent refund with 10% simple interest. She had then made a request that compound interest should be paid. In the complaint also, it is stated as follows: ''''Henceforth, the undersigned request your Hon ''ble Court for justice from DDA with regard to the interest to be paid ''''.

The State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal of the DDA and dismissed the appeal of the complainant with costs of Rs.5,000/ -. The State Commission observed in their order that the payment of compound interest had already been offered to the complainant by DDA vide cheque, which she refused to accept. The complainant was therefore, not entitled to any relief. It has also been stated in the impugned order that the DDA had sent cheque No.89049 dated 13.12.2006 for an amount of Rs. 7,754/ - in compliance of some order dated 22.8.2006 passed by the District Forum. From a perusal of the facts and circumstances on record, it is observed that the instant complaint has been made with prayer regarding the interest to be paid. It is necessary therefore, that the issue of payment of interest to the complainant should have been examined with regard to the policy/instructions on the subject. It is to be established whether the complainant is entitled to get simple interest or compound interest, while making refund. In case, it is held that she is entitled for compound interest, the exact amount shall have to be confirmed and a direction issued to the DDA to pay that amount forthwith. It shall be erroneous to conclude that the complainant was not entitled to any relief now.

IN view of these observations, this revision petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the State Commission with the direction that they should hear the parties again, examine the relevant record/policy/instructions and then pass an order again. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 16.07.2014. There shall be no order as to costs.