DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. NARESH CHAND SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with Section 21 (a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.05.2007, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 20/2006, filed by the present respondent, vide which the said complaint was allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present case are that Smt. Sadhana Sagar, the daughter of the present complainant applied for allocation of a flat at Motia Khan under the fourth self-financing scheme of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Vide demand-cum-allotment letter dated 01.04.1998, flat no. 201, block no. 2, type-IIIA, Motia Khan was allotted to her for a total cost of Rs. 23,86,986/-. A sum of Rs. 19,43,404/- was demanded vide the said allotment letter after deducting the amount already deposited. Later on, the said demand was modified to Rs. 17,87,214.00, on a representation made by the allottee. The full payment as per the modified demand is stated to have been made by the allottee on 29.05.1998. It is alleged, however, that despite writing several letters, the property in question was not constructed properly by the OP DDA, as a result of which, the possession of the same could not be obtained. The complainant, who is father of the allottee, filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking a total compensation of Rs. 42,05,470/- from the DDA on account of interest for late completion, depreciated cost, making alternative arrangements etc.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP DDA by filing a written statement before the State Commission, in which they stated that the complainant Naresh Chander Sagar had no authority to file the complaint on behalf of Sadhana Sagar, because the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed in his favour by her, did not authorize him to institute the present complaint. The complaint should, therefore, be dismissed on this ground alone. Further, the possession of the flat was given to Sadhana Sagar in terms of demand-cum-allotment letter and the conveyance deed was also executed on 13.01.2006. However, there was no protest of any kind from the allottee at the time of taking possession, or execution of the conveyance deed on 13.01.2006. There was, therefore, a concluded contract between the parties and the complainant could not be permitted to repudiate the same. The OP DDA further stated in their written reply that in clause 4(f) of the demand-cum-allotment letter, it was mentioned that four copies of the unsigned conveyance deeds were being sent alongwith. The allottee was required to get these forms duly stamped from the office of the Collector of Stamps, Delhi and then return three copies of the same duly stamped to the DDA, within 120 days from the date of issue of demand letter. It was also made clear that the possession letter shall be issued after the receipt of the conveyance deed forms duly stamped. The conveyance deed papers were got stamped by the allottee on 18.10.2005 and submitted to the office of the DDA, whereafter the possession letter was issued on 11.11.2005. The allottee took possession at the site and thereafter, the conveyance deed was also executed on 13.01.2006. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service or fault on the part of the OP DDA, rather, they had waived off the maintenance charges, which the allottee was supposed to pay for late submission of the required documents within the stipulated period. The OP requested that the complaint should be dismissed, keeping in view the above facts of the case.