ASHOK KUMAR SAINIA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by Ashok Kumar Sainia, Appellant herein and Original Complainant before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission, which had only partly accepted his complaint and had not given adequate compensation and relief as requested for from the Delhi Development Authority, Opposite Party before the State Commission and Respondent in this first appeal.

(2.) FACTS IN THE COMPLAINT : The case of the Appellant is that he had registered himself under the "1982 Fifth Self -Financing Registration Scheme " announced by Respondent in May, 1982 and deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/ - as registration deposit. He applied for a built up flat located in Vasant Kunj under Category -II in his application. Although he was one of the lucky ones in the draw of lots for allocation of Category -II flats located in Vasant Kunj, this was not communicated to him because of ulterior motives on the part of Respondent 's officers. He again, therefore, applied for Category -II flat in December, 1993 in response to a newspaper advertisement and as per draw of lots he was informed that a flat in Rohini (West Delhi) was allotted to him. On 20.04.1994 he sent a protest letter to the Respondent stating that he had never given West Delhi as an option in his application form and, therefore, his case be reconsidered and an allocation be made to him as per his option i.e. in the South Delhi area either in Sarita Vihar or Sheikh Sarai. If this was not possible, Respondent should refund the registration deposit of Rs.10,000/ - alongwith interest due. Appellant also addressed a representation to the Lt. Governor bringing to his attention the conspiracy and malpractices adopted by unscrupulous employees of Respondent because of which he was deprived of having a flat in Vasant Kunj in 1983 although he had been declared lucky in the draw of lots for allotment of a flat in that area. Appellant also filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that Respondent may be directed to allot Appellant a Category -II flat in one of the South Delhi localities preferably in Vasant Kunj at a price prevailing in the year 1983 and in case this is not possible, then he may be allowed to pay the current price of the flat on installment basis i.e. interest free installments spread over 15 years or so. Appellant also sought a compensation of Rs.7,62,300/ - on account of deficiency and negligence as per the following:

(3.) THE State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it concluded that there was deficiency in service on the part of Respondent in not informing the Appellant about either the allotment or non -allotment of the flat in the Vasant Kunj area and directed that the amount of Rs.10,000/ - deposited by him be returned alongwith 12% interest per annum on this amount from the date of its maturity till the date of the order. Apart from this, Respondent was also directed to pay Rs.50,000/ - towards compensation and cost of litigation. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission is reproduced: