MURARI LAL SHARMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where his complaint was dismissed - hence this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant registered himself under a scheme floated by the respondent in 1979 for an M.I.G. flat. A flat was allotted to him in March, 1984 in Dilshad Garden, upon which he applied for a change of location for personal reasons. Consequent to the request a flat was allotted in August, 1989 at a new location in Mayur Vihar, payment of which was to be made in lumpsum. Appellant requested that the mode of payment be changed to fall under hire-purchase scheme which was done in January, 1991 and possession of the flat was taken in September, 1991. After taking possession of the flat a complaint was filed by the appellant before the State Commission seeking four reliefs : (i) cost of original flat was Rs. 42,000/- and now the price of flat being demanded at new location is Rs. 2,72,700/- whereas similarly placed people have been charged lesser price hence old price be charged, (ii) no interest has been paid on Rs. 29,958/- lying deposited with the respondent since May, 1985, that be awarded, (iii) an amount of Rs. 30,858/- with interest has been demanded by the respondent against the first allotment made in 1985, which flat was never occupied by him, this be refunded to him with interest, and (iv) respondent has charged Rs. 7,500/- as 'change charges' against Rs. 1,000/- prevailing in 1985, hence the balance be got refunded. After hearing the parties the State Commission allowed the complaint only to the extent that Rs. 30,858/- deposited by the appellant for charges relating to the first allotment, was ordered to be refunded with interest @ 12% p.a. Other prayers/relief were not granted as not being maintainable, hence the appeal.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent has over-charged him on the price of alternative flat. Originally the price of the flat was Rs. 42,000/- whereas the price being charged is over Rs. 2.72 lakh. This is a consumer dispute and the State Commission erred in not exercising its jurisdiction in this regard. As held by Consumer Forums, the State Commission should have awarded interest for the amount of 29,958/- lying with the respondent. Change charges should have been charged at the rates prevailing in 1985 and not the latest. State Commission erred in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and thus failed to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in it by law.