ASHOK VIJ Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the complainant Shri Ashok Vij had registered himself under the 1985 Sixth Self Financing Scheme Category-II floated by the O. P. and had also deposited Rs.10,000/- as the registration amount. However, though the complainant had opted for a flat in Vasant Kunj and Sukhdev Vihar as his first and second preference for locality the O. P. vide allotment letter dated 10/18.8.1994 had allotted a flat in favour of complainant in Dwarka Block-I, Pocket-I, Category-II, Duplex (GF+ff) for a total estimated cost of Rs.8,30,000/-. In response thereto the complainant had paid in lumpsum four instalments of Rs.7,28,607/- being 90% of the total cost, inclusive of the interest as calculated on the instalments. However, despite having paid 90% of the cost of the flat, the possession of the flat allotted, was not handed over to the complainant and as such the complainant decided to visit the site of construction. On visit, the complainant was shocked to find that the construction of the flat was at the very initial stage and there was no likelihood of the same being completed and handed over in the near future. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the Commissioner (Housing) of the O. P. and protested against the misrepresentation and also wrote several letters dated 12.12.1994, 30.5.1995, 14.8.1995, 4.3.1996 and 7.6.1996 to the O. P. to which no response was received. Accordingly, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking directions to the O. P. to complete the construction of the allotted flat immediately and give possession of the same or in the alternative to allot three bedrooms flat in Vasant Kunj or Sarita Vihar. It is also prayed that the O. P. be directed to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant @ 24% p. a. compounded yearly from the date of payment i. e. , 0.12.1994 till the date of possession of the flat and to adjust the balance cost of the flat from the interest and balance amount to be paid to the complainant. The complainant has also claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.

(2.) The O. P. in its reply/written version has taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the complainant will be paid interest for the delayed construction as per terms and conditions agreed to between the parties and as such no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant. On merits, it is stated that the complainant was required to pay the amount in lumpsum together with A. P. I. in order to bring the complainant at par with the other allottees who had already made the payment of instalments earlier. Furthermore, as per the terms and conditions of allotment the O. P. has paid interest for the delayed construction to the allottee @ 7% p. a. after 30 months and @ 10% p. a. after 36 months till the date of 5th and final instalment and as such the complainant cannot claim interest @ 24% p. a. It is also stated by the O. P. in its reply/written version that there is no deficiency in service on its part so as to entitle the complainant for any compensation as alleged.

(3.) The complainant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complainant and denying those of the written statement filed on behalf of the O. P. Both parties have led their evidence by filing affidavits. The complainant has filed his own affidavit by way of evidence whereas the affidavit of Shri N. N. Puri, Director (Housing) DDA has been filed on behalf of the O. P.