DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SUDERSHAN BHARIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Respondent has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') challenging the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 passed by State Commission, Delhi in F.A. No.716 of 2005, vide which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant filed a consumer complaint in year 2003 stating therein, that in year 1981, petitioner floated a scheme by the name of "LIG Rohini Residential Plotted Scheme, 1981" (for short, 'Rohini Scheme'). Under the said scheme, registration were invited from general public fulfilling specific eligibility criteria for allotment of residential plots of land. The plots of land were to be allotted by draw of lots within five years of the launching of the scheme. Respondent applied for registration in the said Rohini Scheme and his application No.142142 in the said scheme was registered under the priority no.15139. An amount of Rs.2,000/- was deposited. However, respondent received no allotment under the aforesaid scheme in last more than two decades.

(3.) In year 2002, petitioner floated another scheme by the name "Narela Housing Scheme, 2002". Brochure of the said scheme provided in Condition No.1, that waiting registrants of old scheme including Rohini Scheme, 1981 could also apply under this scheme for any category of flat as per their requirement. The flats picturized by the petitioner in its brochure were of 'A' class construction. In the preamble to scheme, petitioner painted a very rosy picture of the scheme and compared it to other highly successful schemes, namely Rohini and Dwarka, reputation of which schemes are a matter of public knowledge. The respondent being desirous of obtaining a flat as he had been waiting for the last 20 years, filled up the required documents as laid down in condition no.7 of the said brochure. Respondent applied for an MIG flat in lieu of his old LIG flat under application No.1245. Vide its letter dated 5.7.2002, petitioner informed the respondent that flat no.560 of MIG category on fourth floor at Sector A-10, Pocket 6 of "Narela Housing Scheme" had been allotted to him. However, his utter shock, respondent found, that unit/flat being offered to him was an old construction, which had been constructed by the petitioner about 9-10 years back. The same was in dilapidated condition. There was no habitation in the area worth even the name. The condition of the area was totally contrary to the advertisement published by the petitioner. The brochure had depicted that plots of 'A' class construction with other facilities to be provided to make the offer attractive for the applicants. Respondent immediately made an enquiry from the office of the petitioner. To his shock, he came to know that the flats being allotted to the respondent and other similarly situated allottees, were old flats which were built somewhere in 1995 or prior to that. It was clear from the conditions of the flat, that petitioner was trying to write off old flats to the public in general at a higher price without making them aware of its year/date of construction. The same amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.