DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main grievance of the appellant against order dated 21.4.2003 passed by District Forum directing the appellant to refund an amount of Rs.32,880/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.17,880/- shown as interest in allotment letter) with 15% interest w. e. f.2.5.1994 till 24.7.1996 on Rs.16,841/- and till 5.10.1998 on Rs.1,700/-. After 5.10.1998 interest will be on the remaining amount i. e. , Rs.14,339/- (Rs.32,880 - Rs.18,541 in that the Forum has not considered the payment of Rs.16,841/- already made by the appellant to the respondent for adjustment in the amount ordered to be refunded.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent deposited Rs.15,000/- for booking of flat with the appellant in 1982 and was allotted a flat in Sarita Vihar vide letter dated 27.5.1991-31.5.1991 which was received by the appellant on 27.6.1991. On 11.7.1991, the respondent requested for cancellation and deposited Rs.1,500/- as cancellation charges. Later on the respondent was allotted a flat in Dwarka vide letter dated 10.3.1994-15.4.1994. By way of letter dated 2.5.1994, the respondent refused to accept the allotment as he never applied for a flat in Dwarka locality and asked for the refund of registration money with Rs.17,880/- as interest shown on Rs.15,000/- but the appellant sent a cheque of Rs.16,841/- only on 24.7.1996 after deducting the cancellation charges for Dwarka flat also. The request of the respondent that she was entitled to Rs.32,880/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.17,880/-) with interest was declined by the appellant. As a consequence, the respondent approached the District Forum for refund of the aforesaid amount as well as compensation for harassment and succeeded in obtaining the impugned order.

(3.) We have perused the impugned order and we do not find any infirmity therein. The appellant has been rightly held guilty for deficiency in service. The intimation of cancellation of flat allotted to the respondent at Sarita Vihar was given to the appellant within one month of the receipt of the allotment. It is date of receipt of letter of allotment which is material and not the date of allotment. Unless the consumer received a letter of allotment of a flat, he is not supposed to send a letter of cancellation on his own. Similarly, the cancellation charges deducted by the appellant in respect of flat allotted to the respondent at Dwarka was unjustified and illegal as the respondent has never applied for a flat in Dwarka. The District Forum has rightly interpreted Clause 2.3 of the allotment letter which puts those applicant who do not apply for a particular colony at a disadvantage qua those who do not apply at all under Clause 2.1. This certainly amounts to unfair practice. The appellant was not entitled to charge cancellation charges for allotment of a flat in a locality for which respondent never applied.