DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BARKAT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. A -260/04 - Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mr. Barkat Lal by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld, but grant of interest from the date 1.11.2001 was changed to date of filing complaint.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is a member of Mianwali District House Building Society Ltd. In the draw conducted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 15.4.1986, Complainant was allotted Plot No. A -1/13 measuring 149.83 sq. yd. Complainant 's name was approved by the Registrar of Coop. Societies on 9.10.1986 for execution of sub -lease. Complainant did not hear anything from DDA for a long period and in such circumstances, complainant wrote to the DDA/OP on 16.3.1989. OP vide letter dated 8.2.1996 asked complainant to deposit 43,516/ - as late execution charges. Complainant deposited aforesaid amount and lease deed was executed on 9.2.1996. Complainant could not raise construction during first 3 years period. Complainant applied to OP for extension of time vide letter dated 22.3.1999 and got extension upto 30.6.2001 vide letter dated 7.2.2001 issued by OP, subject to payment of composition charges amounting to Rs.68,040/ -. Complainant deposited charges and completed construction within the extended time. Complainant made a representation dated 13.7.2001 to the OP for refund of late execution charges of Rs.43,516/ - and composition charges of Rs.68,040/ -. Vide letter dated 19.10.2001, complainant was informed that composition fee from 22.3.1999 to 30.6.2001 along with late execution charges had been waived. Complainant received refund of Rs.67,890/ - vide cheque dated 1.11.2001. Complainant further submitted that OP has unjustifiably withheld the balance amount of Rs.43,666/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP -Petitioner contested complaint and submitted that Rs. 43,566/ - deposited by the complainant consisted of Rs.6,267/ - as penalty for late execution charges of the sub -lease and Rs.37,249/ - for delay in the construction from 17.11.1987 to 16.11.1996. It was further submitted that complainant was to be refunded only Rs.30,641/ -, whereas he has been refunded Rs.37,249/ - in excess which are to be recovered by OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.43,666/ - minus composition charges for the period 9.2.1999 to 21.3.1999 with interest @ 10% p.a. from 1.11.2001 till payment. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and interest was made payable from the date of filing complaint instead of from 1.11.2001 against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.