DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Delhi Development Authority (DDA) who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II Delhi (for short District Forum) has filed this revision petition to assail the order dated 5.4.2006 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short State Commission) who dismissed their appeal.

(2.) Facts, stated briefly are that the respondent/complainant was allotted LIG flat No.113, Pocket 13, Dwarka on hire purchase basis under the N. P. R. S. Scheme 1979. Vide letter dated 28.8.2000, the respondent/complainant applied for a change of mode of payment from hire purchase to cash down basis and for grant of permission to mortgage the flat with the financing Bank. On permission being granted, necessary formalities were completed and the consideration in terms of the demand-cum-allotment letter was deposited on 17.10.2000. The physical possession of the flat was taken on 20.3.2001 where after, the respondent/complainant requested the petitioner for execution of the conveyance deed. Accordingly to the complainant, the execution was delayed by the petitioner Authority on one pretext or the other to the extent that when the deed was finally executed on 8.8.2001, the rate of stamp duty had been increased from 8% to 13% w. e. f.1.8.2001, as a result, he had to pay an additional amount of Rs.19,516/- to get the deed executed. Aggrieved with the conduct of the petitioner Authority resulting in the loss of the said amount, he filed a consumer compliant before the District Forum. In their defence, the petitioner/opposite party submitted that the delay in the execution of the sale deed was due to the complainant himself not fulfilling the requisite procedural formalities, in particular not furnishing NOC from the financing Bank. They pleaded that there was no deficiency on their part since the said NOC was submitted on 8.8.2001 and the conveyance deed was executed on the same day. The District Forum, after due consideration vide its order dated 17.2.2005 awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner DDA filed an appeal before the State Commission who while dismissing their appeal has passed the following order :-

(3.) Aggrieved against this view of the State Commission, which the learned counsel for the petitioner terms it as harsh and unwarranted, that the petitioner/opposite party has filed this revision petition.