DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants/respondents got themselves registered with the petitioner Delhi Development Authority, in its second Self Financing Scheme (Commercial Flats) 1985 for allotment of commercial flats by paying registration amount of Rs.20,000.00 by each of them. No allotment under the said scheme was made to them. Vide letter dtd. 31/12/1992, the petitioner informed the complainants that no specific buildings/projects/scheme under the 1985 second SFS Scheme had yet been taken by them but DDA was in a position to provide some flats in Janakpuri District Centre and Laxmi Nagar, which were being constructed independently of the Scheme under which the complainants were registered. The said flats were likely to be available for possession from August 1993 onwards. The estimated price per square meter was stated to be Rs.16,488.00 for plot no.5 and Rs.18,145.00 for plot no.1 and 2 in Janakpuri District Centre and Rs.14,839.00 in Laxmi Nagar District Centre. It was clearly stated in the letter that the prices were tentative and the actual prices might vary from the tentative prices. However, no specific commercial flat was offered to the complainants. Demand letters were issued to them on 28/3/2000, wherein they were asked to pay premium specified in the said letter. The number of unit allotted to them as well as the size of the unit was stated in the demand letters. They were given credit of the registration money of Rs.20,000.00 which they had already deposited under the 1985 Scheme alongwith interest on that amount for the intervening period. They were asked to deposit the balance amount within thirty days of the issuance of the letter. However, no payment in terms of the above referred demand letter was made by the complainants who approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the demand letters. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 16/1/2004. The complainants did not make payment in terms of the demand letter even after dismissal of the Writ Petition and rather approached the concerned District Forum by way of Consumer Complaints seeking possession of the allotted commercial flats and quashing of the demand raised by the petitioner. They also sought compensation from the petitioner authority. The Consumer Complaints were instituted on 30/12/2005, about one year and eleven months after the Writ Petition was dismissed.

(2.) The complaints were resisted by the petitioner which took a preliminary objection that the complainants were not consumers within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act since the flats in question were to be used only for commercial purpose. On merits, it was inter-alia stated in the written version filed by the petitioner that on completion of the building, draw was held on 29/2/2000 and the complainants having been found successful, allotment was made to them and they were asked to make payment in terms of the demand letter issued to them. It was further stated that the complainants did not make payment in terms of the demand letter and therefore, the allotment was cancelled vide letter dtd. 8/10/2004.

(3.) The District Forum, vide its order dtd. 17/2/2010, directed the petitioner to allot commercial flats to the complainants at the same price as was mentioned in the demand letter. It was further directed that in case the said flat is not available, the petitioner shall allot commercial flat of the same size in the same locality in the same price.