DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SANJAY MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal arising from an order dated 5.12.1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi whereby the appellant was directed to allot a flat on the price prevailing on the date of draw held on 14th March, 1990, to the respondent herein who had registered himself for allotment of LIG Category flat on 3rd October, 1979 by depositing Rs. 1,500/ - vide Receipt No. 102800 against which Certificate of Registration No. 31533 dated 3rd June, 1980 was issued, Apart from the above, the appellant has also been burdened with Rs. 5,000/ - as damages and Rs. 2,000/ - as costs.

(2.) BEFORE us at the hearing it was conceded that the respondent was entitled to be considered for allotment and for allotment of a flat at the time the draw held on 14th March, 1990. It is not disputed before us that he was entitled to be allotted a flat in 1990 but through oversight his name and registration number were missed from the draw. No reason or explanation was furnished for missing out his name. The appellant had taken up the matter with the appellant who included his name in the draw held in the year 1993 and allotted a flat. However, the flats which were allotted in the year 1990 were priced at Rs. 1,11,800/ -. But similar flats of the same category were priced at Rs. 2,56,700/ - in place of the aforesaid cost of Rs. 1,11,800/ -. We are not in a position, to agree with submissions of the appellant justifying the increase in price for that would only mean our blessing, the appellant taking advantage of its own wrong. In view of the fact that in 1990 he was entitled to be allotted a flat and as per the Counsel for the appellant he would have been allotted a flat had his name not been missed which appears to be wrongful and for which no justification or reason is forth coming there is no justification for the respondent being not put on par with 1990 allottees. The respondent suffered the problem of living in rented accommodation and also shifting from place to place. We consider that it is appropriate that a flat is allotted and made available to the respondent -complainant at the rates prevailing in 1990. Since the respondent had used all that money which he would have paid in 1990 when other similarly placed got the flat and paid the money, he should pay interest w.e.f. 14th March, 1990 on the amount that he was or would have been required to deposit in the year 1990 had he been allotted a flat. Likewise, he will also be liable to pay interest from various dates on which instalments would have fallen due for payment up -to -date at the rate already awarded by the State Commission. Since we are of the opinion that die allotment of the flat at the rate prevailing at the time of the draw held on 14th March, 1990 should be adequate relief further compensation need not be paid to the respondent complainant. Accordingly the direction of payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - is set aside and the order relating to payment of interest is modified as indicated hereinabove though at the same rate of interest i.e. 7% which shall be payable w.e.f. 14th March, 1990. In the circumstances, the impugned order is upheld subject to the above modifications regarding interest and compensation. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of accordingly.