DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. D.C. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Opposite Party has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act) against impugned order dated 15.1.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.705 of 2010.

(2.) Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant in response to an advertisement published by the Petitioner/Opposite Party under the name of "EXPANDABLE HOUSING SCHEME, 1996" applied for allotment of a flat, vide Application No.014269 dated 8.10.1996. As per terms and conditions of the scheme, respondent deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- as earnest money alongwith application. In the draw of lots held on 21.3.1997, respondent was allotted a flat bearing No.440, Type-A, Sector B-4, Pocket-6, Group-2, Narela, Delhi as communicated by the petitioner vide its letter dated 12.1.2000/20.1.2000. As per allotment letter, cost of the allotted flat was shown as Rs.5,16,300/- and respondent was called to deposit initial amount of Rs.37,946.09 by 18.7.2000. Respondent deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- as confirmation money with the petitioner, vide Challan No.088115 dated 10.2.2000.

(3.) It is further stated that as respondent was/is a Government servant, he wanted to avail the loan facility from his office for the purpose of securing necessary balance payment in respect of the above mentioned flat. In this connection, he made a written request dated 13.3.2000 to the petitioner for grant of necessary mortgage permission. However, no response was received from the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent had been visiting the concerned officials of the petitioner on public hearing days and repeating his request. On all these occasions, he was assured that the permission shall be granted in due course of time. Since, respondent could not get any response from the petitioner, vide application dated 16.11.2006 he sought information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) from the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent for the first time came to know from petitioner's letter dated 13.12.2006 in response to his application under RTI Act, that the flat allotted to him on the basis of draw of lots held on 21.3.1997, had already been allotted in favour of Smt. Santosh Minhas through draw of lots held on 28.3.1995 vide allotment file No. 505(740)/95/EHS/NA. Thereafter, respondent served a legal notice upon the petitioner. However, petitioner instead of taking corrective measures in the case of "Double Allotment" tried to justify and cover up its deliberate and intentional mistake in reply dated 30.7.1997. Due to gross negligence, ineptitude and inefficiency on the part of petitioner, respondent has suffered loss and expenditure.