DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHOIRTY Vs. RAJ KUMAR MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2008 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint case no. 229/98, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and against the DDA for not-handing over the possession of the flat in question in time inspite of having received the entire consideration. Besides, the State Commission has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. on entire consideration from the date of last deposit till the date of possession.

(2.) The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint before the State Commission and then the present appeal are that vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 29.04.1997 / 02.05.1997, complainant was allotted a ready built flat in Dwarka for total consideration of Rs.7,27,800/- and after adjustment of the initial deposit amount of Rs.50,000/-, the complainant was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,81,549/- within 60 days from the date of issue of the letter. Complainant paid the said amount to the DDA on 02.07.1997. However, at the site the complainant found that the flat was still under construction and the facilities of water and electricity were not made available. The complainant made a representation in that behalf to the DDA but with no result and rather complainant was asked to deposit a further sum of Rs.58,244/- on account of stamp duty on the conveyance deed. Even this money was paid by the complainant on 08.02.1999. Still the possession of the flat was not delivered to the complainant and rather he was asked to deposit a further sum of Rs.35,920/- on account of interest for delayed payment, enhanced freehold charges and maintenance charges. The complainant, however, did not pay this amount and filed the complaint. The DDA contested the complaint denying any deficiency in service on their part and it was pleaded that the complainant failed to pay the demands raised from time to time and, therefore, the possession of the flat could not be handed over to him. It would appear that during the pendency of the complaint, the possession of the flat was offered vide letter dated 28.02.02 and it was accepted by the complainant without prejudice to his claim in the complaint filed by him before the State Commission. The State Commission, going by the facts and circumstances of the case and that the delivery of the possession of the flat was delayed due to non payment of small amount of Rs.12,150/- on account of maintenance charges which was payable only after delivery of possession, concluded that the DDA had committed deficiency in service. The Commission also noticed that action of the DDA in not delivering the possession was arbitrary, whimsical and capricious because even the payment of Rs.12,150/- was made in the year 1997 and despite that delay of five years was caused in delivering the possession. Taking support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Balbir Singh, 2004 5 SCC 65] and Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994 1 SCC 243], the State Commission allowed the complainant and passed the impugned order.

(3.) Before we proceed to discuss the grounds on which the impugned order is sought to be assailed, we may notice that the present appeal has been filed after undue delay of 386 days. Alongwith the Memorandum Of Appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. Para 2 of the said application contains the reasons due to which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation and reads as under: