DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. S K KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the Complainant was allotted a shop in a commercial complex, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, on lease in auction held on 7.12.1994 by the Delhi Cantonment Board. The Complainant, in terms of the Agreement, deposited Rs.3,03,000/- towards security deposit. As per the terms of the lease deed the interest earned on that amount would be adjusted towards monthly rent of Rs.2,525/-. The lease deed was executed on 21.6.1995 and possession of the shop was handed over on the same date. The contention of the Complainant is that the complex is not provided with the basic facilities, such as water, toilets and electricity. His application to the DESU for grant of electric connection was turned down for the reason that the complex was in unelectrified area and hence the electric connection could not be sanctioned. In addition to this, the Board has also not deposited the required charges with the DESU for this purpose. Hence, feeling aggrieved by the attitude of the Board in failing to provide the basic amenities, the Complainant approached the District Forum, praying for a direction to the Board: (i) to pay interest on the security deposit at bank rate from 7.12.1994; (ii) not to deduct rent till the electric connection was installed; and (iii) to pay Rs.15,000/- p.m. towards subsistence allowance for the loss suffered by him. The Board did not contest the matter before the District Forum. Hence, the District Forum passed an ex-parte order.

(2.) THE District Forum on finding from letter dated 14.9.1995 of the Executive Engineer of the DESU that the Complex lay in unelectrified area held that this fact was not told to the allottee of the shop (Complainant). Another letter dated 25.10.1996 of the Commercial Officer (DESU) states that the Board had not handed over LT Room to DESU and as such electric connection could not be released in favour of the allottees. The District Forum further held that the Complainant could not get connection till 8.5.1997. In view of the above findings, the District Forum directed the Board not to charge rent from the Complainant till 8.5.1997, the date on which the Complainant was sanctioned electric connection; to refund to the Complainant Rs.2,525/- p.m., that has been received from him towards rent from 21.6.1995 to 8.5.1997; to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant; and (iv) pay costs of Rs.1,000/-, but the District Forum disallowed the prayer of the Complainant for grant of interest on the deposited amount of Rs.3,03,000/-, as the lease deed did not permit payment of interest on the deposited amount.

(3.) WE have exhaustively heard the learned counsel for the parties. As per the record, Delhi Cantonment Board has constructed a commercial complex. Shops were auctioned by it. The question is, whether the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, would be maintainable or not. As per Section 2(1)(d) (ii) 'consumer' inter alia means a person who avails of any service for consideration. The word 'service' is defined under Section 2(1)(o) to mean service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes". facilities in connection with """ housing construction. Therefore, the question is whether non-construction of toilets, and panel room and laying of cable for getting electricity, are the facilities connected with the housing or commercial complex.