P M S ENTERPRISES Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present complaint has been filed by M/s. P. M. S. Enterprises and its partners Mr. Sandeep Gandotra, Pradeep Gandotra and Smt. Maharani Gandotra alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP-DDA.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows: in the year 1984, the O. P. invited the public to purchase commercial flats at various places including Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi under the scheme known as First Self Financing Scheme (Commercial Flats) 1984. The complainants vide application No.4398 applied for Type I flat measuring 75 sq. mtrs. in Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The complainants also deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- as required on 12.4.1984. According to the brochure, the complainants were required to pay the price of the flat in 5 equal instalments. The complainants waited for the demand-cum-allotment letter. However, in March, 1989 they received a letter dated 2.3.1989 by which the O. P. informed the complainants that the flat allocated to them has been cancelled on account of failure to deposit the amount of instalments as demanded in letter dated 22.7.1985. According to the complainants, they have never received the allotment letter dated 22.7.1985 and hence they wrote to the OP-DDA against this cancellation on 12.4.1989. On the representation of the complainants, the O. P. agreed to restore the allocation of flat vide letter dated 9.10.1990 subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as restoration fee. O. P. also demanded Rs.5,62,720.25 p. towards five instalments of the flat which became due together with 18% interest. According to the complainants, since the price of the flat was to be paid in 5 instalments, this demand of the O. P. for payment in lumpsum was unwarranted and was contrary to the terms of the scheme. The complainant protested against the letter dated 9.10.1990 insisted for issuance of demand-cum-allotment. The complainants deposited Rs.5,000/- as restoration fee on 19.10.1990. However, the complainants did not deposit the amount of Rs.5,62,720.25 p. as demanded by the O. P. along with interest. Instead, they protested vide letter dated 22.10.1990. It is stated by the complainants that no reply to the above letter was received. However, the O. P. vide letter dated 12.7.1992 again cacelled the allotment as no payment was made by the complainants. The complainants again protested against the cancellation of allotment and when nothing was done they filed the present complaint in 1994, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-DDA. The complainants demanded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of income from business along with 18% interest, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and sufferings and Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of litigation. The complainants also prayed for directions to the O. P. to issue the allotment letter in respect of the flat applied for and also to restrain the O. P. from illegally demanding 18% interest. The complainants also prayed that in case suitable flat is not available at this stage, then they should be paid the difference between the price of the flat in December, 1986 and price on which now these flats are available in the market.

(3.) In support of the complaint affidavit of Shri Sandeep Gandotra, partner of M/s. P. M. S. Enterprises along with copy of the brochure and the copies of the correspondence made with the O. P. and also copies of the challan of Rs.5,000/- by which restoration fee was deposited have been filed.