GOVIND S PODDAR Vs. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order of District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, dated 11.12.2000, passed in Complaint Case No. C-1791/1999 - entitled Smt. Renu Gauba V/s. Delhi Development Authority.

(2.) Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition, are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Forum averring therein that the petitioner had advertised for auction of some shops and as such the respondent after depositing the earnest money, amounting to Rs.10,000/- had bid for Shop No.10, situated at Block No.5, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi and had been declared successful for the allotment of the same. Accordingly, the respondent had deposited 25% of the price of the shop amounting to Rs.3,98,000/- on 18.2.1998. Thereafter the respondent had received a demand letter dated 18.3.1998 directing him to deposit the balance 75% of the amount i. e. Rs.12,56,685/- within 30 days from the date of the issue of the letter. The respondent, however, expressed her inability to pay immediately and as such requested the appellant to extend the period for payment by six months. The said request of the respondent was duly allowed by the appellant vide letter dated 8.5.1998. Thus the respondent was permitted to make the payment of the balance 75% of the total price of the shop in question by 17.10.1998 subject to payment of interest on the said amount. The respondent as per requirement made the payment of the balance amount of Rs.12,56,685/- in 6 instalments within the extended period allowed to the respondent. However, since the appellant failed to deliver the possession of the shop in question duly equipped with amenities of water and electricity and also failed to respond to her request for waiver of interest charged for the extended period, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant to hand over the possession of the shop duly electrified and also to waive interest sought for the extended period. The respondent also prayed for grant of interest @ 18% p. a. on Rs.16,64,685/- (the price paid for the shop), for the period from 15.10.1998 onwards, together with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment undergone by her.

(3.) The defence of the petitioner/dda in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum was that the respondent had prayed for the extension of time up to 7.10.1998 for the balance payment of the bid amount of the shop, i. e.12,56,685/-, subject to payment of interest, on the said amount for the extended period. However, though the respondent had paid the balance amount of Rs.12,56,685/-, she had failed to make the payment of interest. So far as the provision of electricity and water in the shop in question was concerned, it was stated by the petitioner in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, that the responsibility for providing the said amenities was of the Delhi Vidyut Board and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respectively, and since the petitioner had duly deposited a lump-sum amount with the said authorities on 19.2.1999 for providing the above said amenities in the shop in question, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent being devoid of merit was liable to dismissed with costs.