SNEH CHADHA vs VICE-CHAIRMAN, D.D.A.

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 8th March, 1991/ 31th March, 1991 passed by the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Complaint Case No. C-3/89. The said complaint was filed by the present appellant Mrs. Sneh Chadha. According to the allegations contained in that complaint, she was registered under the 5th Self-Financing Scheme (for short SFS) on 15th September, 1982 and paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards registration. The Delhi Development Authority (for short D.D.A.) who is respondent herein, invited applications from 19th October, 1987 to 6th November, 1987 from persons registered under the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and Special Self Financing registration schemes for allotment of flats for various schemes. The allotment under the scheme was in terms and conditions contained in the Brochure issued by D.D.A. The registrants were required to give options for four localities as were being released in the brochure mentioning their order of preference. The choice for preference was final. Specific flat number was to be decided through a draw of lots after the completion of flats. The flats are allocated at the time when their construction starts. The construction of the flats in Pitam Pura, Pocket L, Category II started in 1981 and was completed in 1989. Vide a draw held by DDA held on31.12.1987 the Complainant was allocated a flat under the SFS at Pitampura, Pocket, Category II, Second Floor. The allocation related back to the date of the commencement of the construction of the flats. The estimated cost of the flat was mentioned as 1,24,000/- as per a letter of allotment. The schedule of instalments, for payment of 90% of the estimated cost was as under: The complainant was required to pay a total amount of Rs. 1,11,600/- for four instalments along with an amount of Rs. 61,903,18 as interest plus Rs. 100/- as share money for membership of registered agency. Against the aforementioned payments totalling Rs. 1,73,603.18 the complainant was given a credit of Rs. 10,000/- paid by her as registration deposit and a sum of Rs. 4,679.14 as interest which accrued on registration deposit, totalling Rs. 14,679.14 and was thus required to pay an amount of Rs. 1,58,924.04 by 15th February, 1988. The complainant paid this amount on 14th February, 1988 which represented 90% payment of the estimated cost of Rs. 1,24,000/- of the flat and the interest amount accrued till then. DDA issued a provisional Demand letter against 5th and final instalment on 4th April, 1989 informing her that on the basis of a draw of lots held on 26th March, 1989, she has been allotted specific flat bearing No. 13 on the Second Floor. DDA also estimated the cost of the flat as Rs. 3,06,284/-. As the complainant had already paid Rs. 1,11,600/-, she was required to pay in one month''s time Rs. 1,94,684/-. DDA issued another demand letter against 5th and final instalment on 5th July, 1989 superseding the previous provisional demand letters. The cost of the flat was shown as Rs. 2,32,000/-.

THE main grievance of the complainant was that there was arbitrary increase in the cost of self-financing flats by 90% i.e. from Rs. 1,24,000/- to Rs. 232,000/-. The following deficiencies in the flat were alleged; (i) Infrastructure is basically defective and there is no uniformity of plastering, walls, flooring etc. (ii) Flooring is totally damaged. (iii) Incomplete sanitary and electric fittings. (iv) Inferior quality of material is used for sanitary and electric fittings as compared to other flats under the same scheme in other localities". She also alleged that the DDA had charged the escalated price for the plinth area of 108.938 sq. mts. whereas the actual plinth area is 88.6599 sq. mts. The complainant, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs:" (i) That the DDA be directed immediately to return excess amount charged from the complainant i.e. Rs. 1,08,000/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. (ii) Interest on deposits made by the complainant be paid till such time that the deficiency in the flat is rectified by the DDA. (iii) The excess amount charged on account of plinth area should also be returned alongwith interest at the rate of 24% p.a. 3. DDA contested the complaint, ft was averred that though the cost of the flat was estimated at Rs. 1,24,000/- but at the time of allocation, the cost of the flat was provisionally worked out and the disposal cost was fixed at Rs. 2,32,000/- DDA had to revise the provisional letter due to the following reasons: (i) That the plinth area of the flat has increased by about 14 sq. mts. which results in the increase of the cost the flat to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. (ii) That these flats were allocated in 1981 and the construction of the flats was started in Nov., 1981 and completed in 1989. There had been tremendous increase in the cost of material and labour etc. and as such the final cost of the flat is bound to be higher than the estimated cost worked out in 1981. The registrants were intimated that the estimated cost might increase and was subject to variance. Other allegations of the Complainant were also controverted.

The State Commission held that the complainant was not entitled to relief on account of the escalation of the cost of flat. About the dispute relating to the plinth area, the DDA was directed to furnish a detailed breakup of the plinth area allotted to the complainant within a period of two months from the issue of the order. So far as the question of defects in the construction of the flat complained of, the State Commission found that the complainant was entitled only to the re-flooring of two bedrooms, re fixing of tiles in the kitchen, fixing of window panes and some sanitary fittings like stop cocks etc. For that purpose, she was awarded Rs. 10,00( /- as compensation and the complainant was required to undertake the above work. Other reliefs were declined to the complainant. 5. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the State Commission declining her other reliefs, the complainant has filed this appeal. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, and going through the records, we are of the opinion that this appeal is liable to fail. The first relief claimed by the appellant in this appeal is about the refund of excess amount charged from her on account of escalation along with interest. This relief cannot be granted as it is the consistent view of this Commission that the question of pricing of a flat or a plot cannot form the subject matter of a ''consumer dispute''. In this regard, a reference can be made to the order of this Commission . decided on 7th October, 1993. 7. The next relief claimed by the appellant is interest on the deposits made by her till the time the deficiencies in the flat are rectified. The State Commission has awarded Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant to undertake reflooring of two bedrooms, refixing of tiles in the kitchen, fixing of window panes and some sanitary fittings like stop cocks etc. The Complainant should not wait to effect the repairs till the amount is received by her. She is in occupation of the house. The third relief claimed is for the alleged excess amount charged on account of increase in plinth area and that it should be refunded to her. At present, there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the flat allotted to the Complainant has excess area or not. The State Commission has already directed the DDA to furnish a detailed break-up of the plinth area sold to the Complainant within a period of two months from the issue of its orders with a copy to the State Commission. There is nothing on the file to show that the DDA has complied with the directions of the State Commission or not. If it has hot complied, we direct that the DDA should comply with the said direction within two months from the receipt of this order. After supply of that break-up in the plinth area if the Complainant feels that she has been charged for more area she can take further steps, advised, for recovery of excess amounts realised from her. With the above directions, dismiss the present appeal but make no orders as to costs.