DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 14.7.1997 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.374/1996-entitled Sh. P. K. Banerjee V/s. Delhi Development Authority.

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that Sh. Mohan Singh was the original allottee of Flat No.20-D, Pocket-A, Mayur Vihar, Phase II, Delhi and Sh. P. K. Banerjee/respondent purchased the said flat from Sh. Mohan Singh, on power of attorney basis. The flat in question was allotted on hire purchase basis and the appellant had floated a hire purchase penalty relief scheme of 1995 whereby a package deal in the form of incentive was afforded to the allottees who cleared their instalments along with interest upto date. Under the said scheme, the relief in penalty worked out to around 66% and the said scheme was valid to the allottees making the payment during the period 1.8.1995 to 31.1.1996. The respondent received a defaulter notice from the appellant dated 18.11.1995 in respect of flat in question whereby the respondent was required to make the payment of instalments due and also penalty interest on delayed payment. On receipt of the above notice the respondent made payment of instalments on 1.2.1995 and Rs.22,378/- towards penalty interest after calculating the rebate in terms of the penalty relief scheme of 1995. However, on account of calculation mistake the respondent paid an amount Rs.1,222/- less which error was detected on 21.12.1996 when the second defaulter notice directing the respondent to make the payment by 31.12.1996 was delivered. On receipt of the said notice the respondent contacted the concerned official of the appellant DDA who directed the respondent to avail of the hire purchase penalty relief scheme of 1996 and as such the respondent made the payment as directed by the official of the appellant under the scheme of 1996 in which the relief in penalty provided was only upto 50% instead of 66% provided under the earlier scheme of 1995. Accordingly, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant to consider his case as covered under the scheme of 1995 and not under the scheme of 1996 and to refund/adjust the extra amount realised from him in the balance instalments.

(3.) The appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum raised several preliminary objections and on merits stated that the respondent had not deposited the full penal interest during the validity of the scheme of 1995 and as such his case was considered under the scheme of 1996. As such respondent was not entitled to the benefits under the scheme of 1995.