B M SHUKLA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the present complaint, filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') are that the complainant Smt. Anima Debi was allotted an MIG Flat No.7, Sector 15, Block D, Pocket-4, Rohini, Delhi on hire-purchase basis by the O. P. vide letter dated 23.4.1990-27.4.1990. On behalf of his aunt, the complainant deposited the initial amount of Rs.40,073/- with the O. P. on 24.5.1990 and also submitted all the relevant documents for the issue of possession letter. However, the O. P. failed to issue the same. In the meanwhile, the complainant's aunt met with an accident and dislocated her knee, she therefore, applied for change of floor from third floor to ground floor, on medical grounds but the O. P. did not respond to the request of the aunt of the complainant. On account of her ill-health, the aunt of the complainant could not make the payment of some of the instalments and as such the O. P. vide letter dated 17.4.1997 directed the complainant's aunt to deposit an amount of Rs.2,16,825.50 p. towards 83 monthly instalments @ rate of Rs.2,612.35 p. , together with Rs.1,36,599.78 as penalty for belated monthly instalments upto April, 1997 @ 18% p. a. The complainant's aunt submitted another application dated 5.2.1997 praying for the change of floor from third floor to ground floor, for rescheduling of instalments and also for waiver of the penal interest. The said letter, however, remained unreplied by the O. P. Even the reminder dated 28.12.1997 in this regard, was ignored by the O. P. Ultimately on 3.3.1998, the complainant's aunt applied for transfer of the allotment of the flat in question in the name of the complainant and submitted all the relevant documents along with the application for transfer. O. P. vide its letter dated 14.10.1998, transferred the registration and allotment of the flat in question in the name of the complainant on the original terms and conditions. Thereafter the complainant applied for the waiver of the penal interest through the Minister of Urban Affairs and Employment, as well as, Vice-Chairman, DDA. In response to the said application the complainant was advised to avail of the 'amnesty Scheme 98'. As such the complainant paid up the instalments and interest but thereafter applied for the refund of the penal interest. However, the said application of the complainant was declined vide OP's letter dated 6.7.1999. The complainant again submitted an application dated 6.8.1999 for refund of penal interest but since there was no response to the same, the complainant approached this Commission by filing the instant complaint, seeking a compensation of Rs.8,02,618/- together with interest and costs as detailed in para 26 of the complaint.

(2.) In its reply/written version, filed before this Commission, the O. P. raised several preliminary objections, the main being that since the complainant had already filed a Civil Writ Petition No.6467/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the same cause of action, the present complaint filed before this Commission was not maintainable under the law. The other preliminary objections raised by the O. P. was that the complainant was not a consumer and the controversy involved in the complaint was not a consumer dispute and as such not entertainable under the Act. The remaining preliminary objections pertained to the merits of the case. On merits, the stand of the O. P. was that the request of the aunt of the complainant Smt. Anima Debi for change of floor from third floor to ground floor could not be acceded to, as her case was not covered under the policy of the O. P. Furthermore, the complainant's aunt had defaulted in making the payment of the instalments in respect of the flat allotted to her and as such was liable to pay the penal interest on the defaulted instalments in terms of the policy/terms and conditions of the allotment. It was further the case of the O. P. /dda that the complainant's aunt was herself responsible for not taking over the possession of the flat in question as the O. P. had issued a letter dated 19.6.1996 asking her to take the possession of the flat in question but the complainant's aunt vide her letter dated 17.9.1996 had expressed her inability to appear before the concerned officials on account of her illness and had also requested for further time for making payment of instalments. As such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O. P. and the complaint of the complainant being frivolous was liable to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) Both the parties filed their affidavits by way of evidence. The complainant filed his own affidavit by way of evidence, whereas on behalf of O. P. , the affidavit of Shri D. P. Dwivedi, Director (Housing) of O. P. was filed.