SANTOSH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present complaint filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant being a poor, handicapped widow having minor children, had applied for an "out of turn allotment" of a MIG flat in the year 1986. The said request of the complainant was processed by the O. P. vide file No. F.102 (405)86/ota/np. Thereafter on 21.6.1989, the complainant made a representation to the Lt. Governor, Delhi and the latter recommended for the allotment of a MIG flat, preferably in Rohini, Sector 7-8, on the Ground Floor, as the complainant was handicapped. In pursuance of the said order of the Lt. Governor, Delhi, the O. P. allotted a flat to the complainant in 1989, though the intimation of the same was sent to the complainant only in September, 1991. On receiving the allotment letter of O. P. dated 12.9.1991, the complainant persued the matter with the O. P. and thereafter in July, 1992, the O. P. sent a demand letter to the complainant wherein the total cost of the flat demanded was Rs.1,74,400/-. The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that since the flat in question was allotted to the complainant in the year 1989, the cost of the same should have been fixed at the rates prevailing in the said year and not on the basis of price prevailing in the year 1992, i. e. the date of communication of the demand-cum-allotment letter. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the prayer for directions to the O. P. to place before this Commission, the 'pricing formula' to the basis of which the price of the flat offered to her has been fixed; to direct the respondent to allot a MIG category flat in Sector 7-8 on the Ground Floor as per the orders of the Lt. Governor; to direct the O. P. to explain as to why the demand letter was not issued to the complainant in the year 1989 itself and to declare the price fixed for a similar flat in 1989 and has also prayed for the cost of the present proceedings.

(2.) The O. P. in its reply/written version has controverted the case of the complainant. It has been stated by the O. P. that on the representation of the complainant, the Lt. Governor, Delhi, had approved the allotment of a LIG flat to the complainant in the year 1989 and accordingly O. P. had allotted a LIG flat No.6 Sector-2, Pocket-6, Rohini, Delhi to the complainant, in the draw of lots held in November, 1989. After the said allotment the complainant had made another representation to the Lt. Governor, Delhi for the allotment of a MIG flat, concealing the factum of earlier allotment of a LIG flat. The Lt. Governor however, recommended the same in favour of the complainant but when the matter was processed by the competent authority, it was decided that the LIG flat already allotted to the complainant be given to her and, therefore, a letter dated 12.9.1991, intimating the said allotment, was duly sent to the complainant. The O. P. has also stated in its reply/written version that the delay in intimating the allotment of LIG flat to the complainant, as well as, the issuance of a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 13.7.1992, was occasioned on account of the fact that the complainant had been making representations even after the allotment of the flat to her, as such the processing of the said representations took some time, resulting in the delay in communication of the allotment. Furthermore, on account of the representations of the complainant, the costing details were obtained from the Accounts Wing of O. P. and thereafter the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to her. As such the price of the flat being charged from the complainant is in accordance with the pricing policy of the O. P. i. e. on "no profit no loss basis", and there being no deficiency in service on its part the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the reply/written version of the O. P. in which the contents of the complaint have been reiterated and those of the written version have been denied. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits. The complainant has filed her own affidavit whereas the affidavit of Ms. Asma Manzar, Director Housing, DDA has been filed on behalf of O. P.