NAND KISHORE MALHAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the applicant. The grievance of the applicant as contained in the compensation application, filed by him, is that the respondent, Delhi Development Authority, offered allotment of a flat i. e. MIG No.62, 2nd floor, Sector-18, Rohini, New Delhi-110 085 to him, at a price of Rs.5,01,591.25, whereas identical flats were allotted to other registrants, in 1990, for an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. It also transpires that the applicant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Commission vide its order dated 18.2.2002 dismissed the complaint petition stating therein that the dispute raised by the applicant related to pricing/costing of the flat, allotted to him, by the DDA, and that such a dispute does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The applicant has admitted that in the draw of lots, held by the respondent, he was not successful and the flat, in question, was offered to him only when other registrants refused to accept the same. In other words, the offer of allotment was not made to the applicant on the basis of draw of lots as was the case of other registrants, who applied initially in response to Rule No.16 of the Brochure of Registration Scheme, on a New Pattern of 1979. In other words, the case of the applicant is not on the same footing as that of the other registrants and it appears that the offer of allotment was made to him subsequently, when those registrants who were lucky and successful in the draw of lots were offered allotments but some of them refused and after their refusal, the left over flats were allotted to other registrants like the applicant. Since the allotment to the applicant appears to have been offered after a time gap, a much higher amount was demanded from him. It can thus be construed to be a case of fresh allotment and not an allotment on the basis of initial registration under the scheme announced by the respondent. In that view of the matter, the applicant can't claim allotment on the same price. Even otherwise, in this Commission also, we have also held that pricing/costing of a flat/plot does not fall within the purview of the Commission in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Gupta Sugar Works V/s. State of U. P., 1987 Supp1 SCC 476. This was followed in the case of Shri Sita Sugar Co. Ltd. and Anr. V/s. Union of India and Ors., 1990 3 SCC 223. Accordingly, in view of the above, there is no merit in the compensation application and it is dismissed with no order as to costs, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case.