R S YADAV Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant, Shri R. S. Yadav has filed an application for compensation under Sec.12-B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (for Act for brief) stating that he applied for allotment of an MIG flat under the New Pattern Housing Registration Scheme, 1979 launched by the respondent and paid Rs.4,500/- by way of application money. It has been further stated that he was registered at serial No.34348 as an intending purchaser of a flat and a certificate of registration dated the 13th June, 1990 was issued to him. It has been mentioned that he was successful in the draw which was held by the respondent on the 7th August, 1996, for allotment of flats, and he was allotted MIG Flat No.21-C in Kondali Gahroli, Phase-II and thereafter he was asked in November, 1996 to pay an amount of Rs.6,34,359.25 as final consideration towards its cost within 90 days. It has also been mentioned by him that he had to borrow Rs.2,00,000/- from SBI Home Finance Ltd. @ 16% and he also took loan from his employer in order to pay the full amount of Rs.6,34,360/- so that he may get the possession of the flat and use it for his residential purposes. It has been further stated that it was stipulated in the offer of allotment that if the deposit was not made by 11th January, 1997, interest @ 12% for the first month and @ 18% for the subsequent month would be charged and the allotment was also liable to be cancelled. It was also stipulated that the possession of the flat was to be handed over within 15 days from the date of presenting the possession letter issued by the respondent. The grievance of the application is that even after making the full and final payment and on his presenting the possession letter, the possession of the flat was delayed considerably as the flats were incomplete and not ready for possession.

(2.) It has been complained by him that in December, 1997 he was advised to approach the site office at Kondali Gahroli where he was required to give an affidavit that he would take possession of the flat without water and electricity connection and would not approach any Judicial Forum/consumer Court for any claim against the respondent for handing over possession of the flat without water and electricity. It has been further complained by him that he has been deprived of the use of the flat even though he paid the full amount and he should be compensated by the respondent by paying to him interest @ 24% on the full amount paid towards the cost of the flat and also for the expenses incurred by him on litigation as well as the loss sustained by him on account of rental income whch would have accrued if the flat could be let out from of the date of possession till the date when water and electricity were made available.

(3.) In reply, it has been stated on behalf of the respondent that while the construction of the flats was the responsibility of the respondent, water and electricity connections were to be provided by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) respectively and although the requisite amounts were deposited by the respondent with MCD and DVB, there was delay on their part in providing the necessary connections.