S N KANCHHAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present complaint has been filed by Mr. S. N. Kanchhal against Delhi Development Authority under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are as follows:

(2.) THE complainant applied for allotment of a flat under 5th Self Financing Registration Scheme, 1982, Category II floated by the O. P. -D. D. A. on 9.8.1982. It was assured that the complainant would be allotted a flat within 3 -4 years and the cost of the flat will be around Rs.3,00,000/ -. Subsequently, on the basis of draw held on 31.12.1987, the complainant was allotted a flat in category III, Ground Floor, Block B, Pocket 10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and the estimated cost of the flat was disclosed as Rs.3,39,600/ -. The said money was to be paid in four instalments vide the letter dated 8.5.1988. It was also mentioned that the estimated cost of the flat is provisional and is subject to revision and also that normally it takes 2 to 2 years period for completion of the project, it was also mentioned in this letter that if due to unforeseen reason, the project is delayed then the applicant will be entitled to interest in a phased manner. It is stated that the complainant paid four instalments upto 15.7.1989. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was neither given possession nor any intimation was given to him even though the O. P. handed over possession of the houses to other allottees whose names appear in the draw held on 31.12.1987. The complainant made representations and after the intervention of a Member of Parliament, the complainant was allotted a flat in Sector B, Pocket 10; Vasant Kunj and the complainant made full payment. However, the possession was never given to the complainant as the flats were never constructed in Pocket 10. Subsequently, vide letter dated 4.3.1992, the complainant was allotted a flat No.4002 (Floor + 1st Floor Category III) Pocket 5 -8, Scheme B in Vasant Kunj and the O. P. informed the complainant that cost of the flat would be around Rs.3,39,800/ - later, vide letter dated 8.5.1992 the O. P. informed the complainant that cost of the flat would be Rs.3,64,800/ - and asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.68,963.80 p. It is however, stated by the complainant that vide letter dated 28.5.1993 the O. P. again arbitrarily increased the cost of the flat to Rs.6,80,700/ - and asked the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,83,769.75 p. The complainant protested the same but due to threat of cancellation, paid the amount under protest on 30.8.1993. Later on the O. P. vide letter dated 16.11.1993 informed the complainant that the cost of the flat would be Rs.5,20,800/ - and there is credit balance of Rs.1,31,923.95 p. in the account of the complainant which shall be refunded to him. The O. P then refunded Rs.1,35,002.40 p. to the complainant without any clarification or details of this amount. Vide letter dated 3.3.1994, the complainant was given possession of the flat on 22.11.1993. The case of the complainant is that the O. P. is a statutory body and it arbitrarily, without assigning any reasons, increased the price of the flat three times within a short period and subsequently reduced the price arbitrarily without showing any justification. It is also the case of the complainant that the original estimated price of the flat was mentioned by the O. P. as Rs.3,39,600/ -. This was almost doubled within a period of one year without any justification. Similarly, after the entire amount was deposited by the complainant, the price of the flat was reduced a bit and the excess amount was refunded after six months without any interest. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O. P. , the present complaint has been filed with the prayer that the O. P. be directed to refund the additional cost of the flat charged by the O. P. along with 18% interest from the date of payment till refund. The complainant has also claimed 18% interest on the excess amount of Rs.1,31,000/ - received by the O. P. on 13.9.1993 and subsequently refunded on 3.3.1994. The complainant also claimed compensation in the form of house rent for the period 1.11.1989 to 22.11.1993 @ Rs.5,000/ - p. m. amounting to Rs.2,00,000/ - and also compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered due to delay in allotment and construction of the flat.

(3.) THE O. P. in its reply/written version stated that the construction of the flat depends upon various factors which are beyond the control of the O. P. and, therefore, in case of delay in construction, O. P. pays interest on the deposited amount as per Clause 11 of the allotment. It is also stated that construction of the flats depends on various factors and sometimes due to reasons beyond the control of the O. P. construction of flats is not taking place in a fixed period. It is also stated that since the flats in Pocket B -10 were not constructed as per requirements, the complainant was allotted a specific flat in Pocket 5 in Vasant Kunj. It is further stated that the complainant did not surrender the original FDR on account of which final payment letter was not issued. According to the O. P. in the letter dated 8.5.1992 only the estimated price of the flat was indicated and the final figure was to be worked out at the time of final payment. O. P. asserted that cost of the flat has been worked out as per policy and there is no arbitrary increase in the cost as alleged. The O. P. also stated that disposal cost of the flat allotted by the O. P. -D. D. A. is worked out by making material calculations and according to the approved pricing policy based on no profit no loss. It is also stated that at the time of release of particular scheme only the estimated cost is worked out and final cost is worked out after the construction of the flat is completed. During the process of execution of particular scheme, the price of the building material and also labour cost increases which is beyond the control of the O. P. The O. P. also pointed out that in case of any mistake, the same was rectified and the complainant has also been given the benefit of it by reducing the cost of the flat from Rs.6,80,700/ - to Rs.5,29,600/ -. Hence it was stated that there is deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of O. P. and the complaint is frivolous.