SHARDA KAURA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal has been filed by Miss Sharda Kaura (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which dismissed her complaint against Delhi Development Authority, Respondent herein.

(2.) IN her complaint before the State Commission, Appellant had stated that in response to an advertisement she had applied for allotment of a flat in Vasant Kunj area in 1982 in Category -III under the Self -Financing Scheme, 1982 floated by the Respondent/Authority. Appellant deposited Rs.15,000/ - on 13.08.1992 as registration amount and the price quoted for the flat was between Rs.2,31,000/ - to Rs.2,63,000/ -. Respondent/Authority was to construct the flats and deliver possession within a reasonable period of time. Although, the Appellant visited the Respondent/Authority's office several times to find out the status of her application, there was no response. She also applied 5 times under the Scheme against the same registration and initial deposit. A registered A.D. notice sent on 15.06.1990 through her Counsel also remained unanswered. However, in response to the Appellant's 6th application made in 1994, Respondent/Authority offered her a flat at Dwarka in Block No.9, Pocket No.2 on the top floor and also sought enhanced payment of Rs.7,73,500/ -. Since, Appellant was not in a position to pay this amount, she requested the Respondent/Authority for refund of the registration amount. Respondent/Authority asked her to submit two copies of cancellation letter and other documents and after going through this letter, she got suspicious and when she personally went to Respondent's office to enquire into the matter, she learned that although Apartment No.4128 in Pocket -4, Vasant Kunj had been allotted to her in 1983, the name of one Subhash Chander was fraudulently substituted in her place in the Register of Respondent/Authority. Appellant was also shocked to know that the file in this connection was missing. Appellant, therefore, sought allotment of a flat in Vasant Kunj area but despite several letters and various appeals including to the Vice -Chairman of the Respondent/Authority, her request was not considered. Being aggrieved, Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of unfair trade practice on the part Respondent/Authority, and requested that Respondent/Authority be directed to deliver her Flat No.4128, Pocket -4, Vasant Kunj for which she was ready to pay the remaining instalments, arrears, charges/balance price as was charged from the other allottees in 1983. However, if the said flat was occupied, then the value of the flat as prevalent in the open market on the date of order of the Hon'ble Commission may be awarded. A compensation of Rs.50,000/ for pain and mental agony and Rs.10,000/ - as litigation cost was also sought.

(3.) RESPONDENT/Authority on being served denied the Appellant's allegations and stated that as per draw of lots, the flat at Vasant Kunj was allotted to one Subhash Chander. However, Appellant's name was inadvertently shown in the Register in 1985 because of bonafide typographical error in the list of successful allottees but there was no fraud as alleged. Respondent contended that since the Appellant had been applying under the ongoing Scheme and her name was being considered in various draw of lots it was not considered necessary to respond to her letters pertaining to the Vasant Kunj flat. As soon as she was successful in the draw of lots in respect of a flat in Dwarka, she was duly informed and when she refused to take possession of the same and sought refund of the registration amount, this was also done on 01.08.1996 after the required deductions and a cheque for Rs.12,441/ - was sent to her. There was no foul play or manipulation as alleged by the Appellant in view of the reasons stated above. Since the Appellant had been refunded the registration amount on her own request, she could not now insist on reconsideration for allotment of a flat in Vasant Kunj as the principle of estoppel would apply. Respondent/Authority cannot be held guilty of unfair trade practice because of a bonafide typographical error.