SUSHILA DEVI vs Vice Chairman D D A

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant applied for a MIG flat in 1979. She was allotted flat No. 89, Sector -7, Pkt -18, Rohini at a cost of Rs. 16,100/ - on hire purchase basis. She paid the following amounts to the D.D.A. S. No. Date of deposit Amount deposited 1. 22 -9 -79 Rs. 4,500 -00 2. 20 -10 -90 Rs. 38,519 -33 3. 29 -2 -92 Rs. 19,977 -00 4. 31 -3 -92 Rs. 3,745 -50 Total : Rs. 66,741 -83

When she went to take the possession, it was discovered that the flat had been allotted to some other allottee and he was in occupation thereof. She applied for allotment of another flat before the D.D.A. and she was allotted a flat No. 70, Block D, 2nd Floor, Sector -15, Rohini. When she went to take the possession, she was informed that the flat could not to delivered to her as High Court had issued stay order against the delivery of possession of that flat.

CONSEQUENTLY , she filed a complaint that the respondent be directed to allot a flat to her and pay interest on the amount already deposited by her and compensation for mental harassment. The respondent in their written statement has pleaded that when the Site Engineer went to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant, it was discovered that the High Court had issued stay order in a writ petition filed by Mahanand Snarma against the Delhi Development Authority. Therefore, the possession could not be delivered to her. They, therefore, are not liable for any damages.

THE 1st question that arises for determination is, whether any flat has been allotted to the complainant. Mr. Goyal learned Counsel for the respondent has made reference from the affidavit of Shri C.P. Tripathi, Director (Housing) Delhi, D.D.A., New Delhi dated 16th August, wherein it is stated that flat No. 70, Sector15, Block -D stands allotted to Smt. Sushila Devi, petitioner and that the allotment has been cancelled from the name of Shri Mahanand Sharma as his writ petition has been dismissed. In view of the aforesaid affidavit it is clear that the said flat stands allotted to the complainant and she is entitled to its possession.

THE 2nd question that arises for determination is at what price the complainant is entitled to get the flat. She was allotted a flat for the 1st time on 27 -9 -90 at a price of Rs. 2,16,100/ -. In our view she is entitled to the allotment of this flat at the same price. The third question which requires determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount deposited by her and damages for mental pain and harassment. The learned Counsel has argued that the complainant is entitled to the rent of the flat and not interest on the amount. In support of his contention he has referred to Nitya Parkash Jain v. D.D.A., II (1993) CPJ 1170. We have considered the matter. Nitya Parkash Jains case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case the total amount had been deposited by the complainant whereas in the present case, the complainant has been allotted the flat on hire purchase basis. Consequently, the complainant cannot derive any benefit from the observation in that case. However, in our view she is entitled to interest on her deposits. We grant interest to her in the facts and circumstances of the case @ 12% p.a. from the dates of deposits till the date of delivery of possession. The complainant is further entitled to damages for mental pain and harassment. We assess the same at Rs. 15,000/ -.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct the respondent to deliver the possession of the flat, adjust/pay interest on the deposit @ 12% p.a. and pay Rs. 15,000/ - as damages to the complainant within a period of 3 months, failing which action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1,500/ -.