NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REVISION PETITION NO. 694 OF 2003
(From the order dated 27.01. 03 in Revision Petition No. 1649/01 of the State Commission, Delhi)
Delhi Development Authority .. Petitioner
Smt. Renu Gaba … Respondent
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.
MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.
Housing – whole price of the shop paid to DDA – shop not equipped with electricity and water – DDA cannot shift blame to DVB or MCD – Held – deficiency in service – award of waiver of interest claimed of DDA upheld.
For the Petitioner : Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate
Dated the 10th April, 2003
O R D E R
This case shows the gross apathy on the part of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), petitioner in treating the allottee causing her great inconvenience and harassment.
Respondent, a lady was the complainant before the District Forum. She was declared successful for allotment of a shop bearing No.10 at block No.5, Sector-IX, Rohini in the auction held by the petitioner-DDA. At that time Renu Gaba, the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- as earnest money. On 18.2.98 she deposited a further sum of Rs.3,98,000/- which was 25% of the price of the shop. A demand letter dated 18.3.98 was received by her requiring her to deposit the balance 75% of the price of the shop amounting to Rs.12,56,685/-. She was granted 30 days time to make the payment from the date of issue of the letter. Renu Gaba, however, requested for extension of time of six months for making payment as she said she was unable to pay the amount immediately. Time was allowed to her by DDA by its letter dated 8.5.98 and time for making payment was extended till 17.10.98 subject to payment of interest. Complainant made the payment of Rs.12,56,685/- within six months in six instalments as was desired by the DDA. Possession of the shop was however, not delivered to her and there was no amenity like water and electricity in the shop premises. DDA also did not respond to her request for waiver of interest for the extended period of six months. Alleging deficiency in service Renu Gaba approached the District Forum.
On notice being issued DDA admitted the receipt of the price of the shop as stated by the complainant. On the question of providing electricity and water to the shop premises reply of the DDA was that it was the responsibility of the Delhi Vidyut Board to supply electricity and of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to supply water and that DDA already paid to the authorities the requisite amount on 19.2.99. DDA also said that the complainant did not pay the interest for the extended period of six months. It was, therefore, contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the DDA. Nothing was, however, said as to why DDA did not consider the request for waiver of interest.
District Forum did not agree with DDA and allowed the complaint. DDA was directed to waive the interest and to deliver possession of the shop without delay and it was further ordered to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount so deposited by the complainant till possession was delivered to her. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded as compensation to the complainant for mental agony she suffered at the hands of the DDA. The order of the District Forum is dated 11.12.2000. No appeal was filed by the DDA challenging the order within the period of limitation. DDA, therefore, lost its right to file appeal. However, it filed revision before the State Commission. It was contended by DDA that it had not received the copy of the order of the District Forum. Certified copy of the order which DDA filed along with the revision petition showed that it was a duplicate copy for which an application was made only on 7.7.2001 after about six months of the impugned order of the District Forum. Even revision petition was barred by limitation as it had to be filed within 90 days and there was no application by DDA for condonation of delay. State Commission did not believe the version of the DDA that it had not received the copy of the impugned order of the District Forum. It noticed that it was not even alleged that certified copy of the order of the District Forum was not received in the receipt section of the DDA at all. No grounds were mentioned to condone the delay even in respect of the revision petition which according to us was not maintainable when there was a right of appeal conferred by the statute.
That apart, from the narration of the events aforesaid show how helpless a citizen could suffer even after whole of the price of the premises was paid. It was the duty of the DDA to see that the premises was equipped with water and electricity and it could not throw blame on the Delhi Vidyut Board and Municipal Corporation of Delhi. We find a citizen is harassed too much at the hands of these Agencies. Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta had severally commented on the conduct of such authorities. We expect the DDA to immediately comply with the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission.
We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Revision Petition is dismissed.
( RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)