DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KEDAR NATH PARASHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Kedar Nath Parashar, complainant for short, was allotted a MIG flat in Jhilmil Colony. He deposited the disposal price and completed formalities within the prescribed period. The flat was found to have already been allotted to another person. On this being brought to the notice of the DDA, another flat No.12-B in the same colony was allotted to the complainant and the complainant was asked to meet the Jr. Engineer at site. The complainant found the door of the flat cracked, seepage on the outer wall and that plaster on the wall had peeled off or had not been done on certain portions of the wall. He brought these defects to the notice of the opposite party in writing on 29.5.93. The complainant took possession of the flat on 23.8.93 on the assurance that defects would be removed. The complainant had to run around and only with the intervention of higher officers some action was taken. The defects were not removed all together. In particular it is the seepage of water in the toilet, kitchen and adjoining room which is causing great hardship and harassment to the complainant. Apparently, the seepage is on account of leakage from the flat situated above the flat allotted to the complainant. Left with no alternative, the complainant instituted a complaint before District Forum-IT. During the pendency of the complaint Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate was appointed Local Commissioner. He inspected the spot on 14.6.94 and submitted his report. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum directed the opposite party to rectify the defects in 60 days time and to give interest @15% p. a. on the amount deposited as disposal price by the complainantfrom5.11.92 till the date the defects are rectified. Rs.5.000/- were allowed as compensation.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order, the DDA has preferred this appeal. We have heard Mr. S. C. Varshney, Advocate for the appellant-DDA and Mr. K. N. Parashar, respondent in person.

(3.) The main contention of Mr. Varshney is that the complainant failed to mention about the seepage at the material stage indicating that the grievance regarding alleged seepage is imaginary or in any case grossly exaggerated. In this connection Mr. Varshney invited our attention to the Inventory prepared at the time of delivery of possession on 23.8.93. It was emphasised that at the foot of the Inventory the complainant had written in his own hand "received one copy. Room floor contains cracks and pit on the floor of room too. " The point to be noted is that there was no mention of seepage. Mr. Varshney also invited our attention to the letter written by the complainant to the Executive Engineer dated 11.3.94 expressing gratitude for the rectification of works connected with the flooring of drawing-cum-dining room, bath-room, balcony and kitchen. In the same letter it was also acknowledged that the work of rubbing and polishing including polishing to skirting had also been done. Again it is pointed out there is no mention of any outstanding work left undone.