IQBAL KAUR Vs. VICE-CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS seen from the record, complainant Iqbal Kaur had applied to the OP/Delhi Development Authority for allotment of a shop, to earn her livelihood. A shop was allotted on 29.2.1996 in Commercial -cum -Staff Housing Complex in Land Acquisition Category (LAC). The entire price of Rs 4,86,205/ - was paid by 15.6.1996. An application was moved on 27.6.1996 requesting for possession of the shop, as full consideration had already been paid. Allegedly, after a series of letters and multiple visits to the DDA, involving prolonged harassment, the possession was eventually received on 12.9.2003 i.e. after lapse of over seven years.

(2.) TEN months before the delivery of possession, a consumer complaint had been filed before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in November 2002, seeking possession with refund of excess amount paid and compensation of Rs.11 lakhs. The State Commission allowed the complaint and awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/ -, observing that - "We have taken a view that whenever a consumer makes payment of entire consideration the first and foremost duty of the service provider is to handover possession and later on get the formalities required to be completed. In this case the delay was of about 7 years. "

(3.) THE record submitted on behalf of the two sides have been perused. Delay of 24 days in filing of appeal by the DDA, has been condoned. Counsel for the DDA, Ms Girija Wadhwa, Advocate and Mr Lajinder Singh, Authorised Representative of the complainant have been heard. Significantly, during the course of hearing of these appeals, learned counsel for the DDA informed that half of the awarded amount has already been paid to the complainant and DDA is willing to pay the remaining half, in full compliance of the impugned order. Learned counsel argued that the complainant has been compensated, more than adequately in the impugned order. Hence, there is no case for the amount being enhanced in appeal. Per contra, it was clarified by the AR of the complainant that the latter is not agreeable to withdrawing his claim for enhancement of compensation, even if the DDA voluntarily makes full compliance with the award of the State Commission.