LAWS(NCD)-2015-7-72

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. NASIRUDDIN FAKHRUDDIN SAIYED

Decided On July 08, 2015
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
Nasiruddin Fakhruddin Saiyed Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of this case leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the respondent/complainant applied for allotment of a flat under Seventh Self Financing Housing Scheme-1994 floated by the petitioner/OP. The complainant paid installments from time to time (starting from 1994) thereby completing the payment of Rs. 5,25,896/- in all (including interest amount of Rs. 2,360/-) till 26.07.1999 towards the cost of the flat. The petitioner/OP sent allotment letter dated 28.08.1998 for Flat No.120, 2nd Floor, Category-II, Sector-12, Block Pocket-2, Dwarka, New Delhi. As per the case set up by the complainant, the petitioner/OP failed to respond to the letters of the complainant regarding possession in spite of his having paid the full cost and it was only on 14.10.2002 that the petitioner/OP requested the complainant to take physical possession of the flat. Alleging deficiency in service in this regard, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum praying for payment of interest @ 18% p. a. on the amount of Rs. 5,01,960/- for the period of delay in possession of the flat along with further compensation of Rs. 60,000/- on account of harassment, mental torture etc. and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 21,000/-. Petitioner/OP resisted the complaint by filing its reply. Parties filed their affidavits and led evidence in support of their submissions. Based on the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing them the District Forum did not find any merit in the complaint and dismissed the same vide its order dated 23.06.2005.

(2.) Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by filing an appeal bearing No.FA-699/05 before the State Commission, Delhi. Vide its impugned order dated 04.04.2008, the State Commission partly accepted the appeal in terms of the following order;

(3.) The petitioner authority has now filed the present revision petition feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay which, according to it, is of 8 days. The office, however, has reported delay of 53 days in filing of the revision petition. Be that as it may, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.