A VIRARAGHVAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the complainant who is petitioner before us. Though he succeeded before the District Forum in his complaint but his complaint was dismissed by the State Commission in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) IN the complaint deficiency in service was alleged on the part of the respondent-Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on the ground that it delayed conversion of leasehold right in the flat of the complainant to freehold. It appears during the pendency of the complaint the leasehold right of the allottee, complainant was converted into freehold. Holding that there was in fact deficiency in service on the part of the DDA, District Forum made the following orders :

(3.) FOR one thing we are unable to appreciate this type of reasoning by the State Commission. A valuable right had accrued to the complainant when no appeal was filed during the period of limitation and secondly the District Forum did not lack its jurisdiction to try the complaint. Whether its view was right or wrong that the allegations in the complaint amounted to deficiency in service could certainly not be inherent lock of jurisdiction for the State Commission to exercise its jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 17 of the Act. Nevertheless, State Commission relying on the decision of this Commission in DDA v. S. S. Puri, 1997 1 CPJ 86 (NC), held in favour of the DDA and thus dismissed the complaint. In the aforesaid judgment, a para which has been narrated by the State Commission, National Commission observed as under :