DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD Vs. DESH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition filed under sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 352 of 2010 dated 21/4/2016 setting aside the order of the District Forum (Central), Delhi (in short, 'District Forum') dtd. 12/4/2010 directing the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.3,000.00 with 18% interest per annum from 27/12/1985 along with compensation of Rs.20,00,000.00 to the respondent for harassment and mental agony, to deposit Rs.50,00,000.00 in the Consumer Welfare Fund and pay Rs.1,00,000.00 towards litigation costs to the respondent.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), a statutory body of the State government under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 launched a Residential Flats Registration Scheme for slum dwellers and others in 1985 through the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The period of registration was from 21/11/1985 to 30/12/1985 and was intended for residents with a food card of areas notified as slums under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1985, jhuggi jhopries, slum rehabilitation colonies, JJ resettlement colonies and unauthorized colonies in urban villages in Delhi. The initial deposit fixed was Rs.3,000.00 and 27,693 applications were received by DDA.

(3.) As the respondent was not allotted a flat, he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi (Complaint No. 541 of 2008) stating that he had applied under the said scheme on 27/12/1985 but had subsequently withdrawn the amount on 14/9/1987 and was refunded Rs.3,385.00 with interest @ 7%. However, he was asked by the authorities to re-apply and accordingly he had deposited Rs.3,385.00 on 20/2/1988 again. As no flat had been allotted to him, the respondent prayed for allotment of a flat along with damages of Rs.50,000.00 and costs of Rs.10,000.00. This complaint was contested by the petitioner herein on grounds that the Priority No. of the respondent was 12929 under General category and that only Priority No. 2650 had been reached under the scheme. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that there was no time frame fixed for the scheme and therefore no violation of the scheme was attributable to the petitioner. No deficiency was also alleged as Priority Number had not been violated.