DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJ BALA GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgement and order rendered by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short 'the State Commission'), in complaint bearing No. 59/1992. By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed with direction that the appellant shall refund an amount of Rs.98,890.81 to the respondent (complainant) along with compensation of Rs.25,000/ on account of loss and sufferings.

(2.) THE case of the complainant (respondent), stated briefly was that deceased Vishan Dass Thareja was allotted a plot by Mianwali District Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. The appellant had allotted leasehold land to the said Housing Society. The Cooperative Housing Society had developed the land. Being member of the said Housing Society, Vishan Dass Thareja was allotted Plot No.3, (Block No.B 3) under an agreement of sub lease executed by the Cooperative Housing Society in his favour. The allotment was made to him a way back. In his lifetime, he executed an unregistered Will Deed dated 4.12.1973 in favour of the respondent (complainant). Under the said Will Deed, the plot was bequeathed in her favour. He died on 19.3.1975. After his death, the complainant obtained probate on 4.12.1993 and thereafter filed an application for substitution of her name as the leaseholder in respect of the said plot. She was called upon by the appellant to pay amount of Rs.90,311.35 being unearned increase as per the terms of the policy decision dated 26.7.1988. She submitted application dated 30.11.1999 seeking waiver of the unearned increase of the charges. Her request was turned down by the appellant ' DDA. On 5.3.1990, she paid that amount. The appellant allowed transfer of plot in her favour on basis of the documents and in view of the payment of unearned increase of the charges as demanded from her. On 3.4.1990, the appellant executed the sub lease deed in her favour. She took possession of the plot in question on 12.5.1990 from Cooperative Housing Society as a sub lessee in view of the terms of the sub lease deed. Thereafter, she filed the complaint proceedings before the State Commission vide Complaint No.59/92.

(3.) BY the impugned order, the State Commission rejected defence of the appellant simply on the ground that the respondent (complainant) was daughter of an aunt of deceased Vishan Dass Thareja and was brought up by him from tender age. He was her foster father and, therefore, procurement of the Will Deed for any monetary consideration was out of question. The State Commission held that the unearned increased amount could not be recovered from the respondent (complainant) and as such, was liable to be refunded to her. Hence, the impugned order was rendered in her favour.