THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President;
Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Appellant/O.P.
versus
B.K. DOGRA—Respondent/Complainant
Case No. A-46/92—Decided on 30.10.1992
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 14 - INTEREST ON ESTIMATED COST OF FLAT - REFUND - DELAYED COMPLAINT - NOT MAINTAINABLE:
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Sh. B.K. Dogra, purchased a flat from DDA under the Self Financing Scheme (SFS) in Kishan Garh (Pocket A). The estimated price of the flat was Rs. 2,36,300/-, but the final cost was worked out by DDA as Rs. 1,86,300/-. However, DDA asked the complainant to pay an interest of Rs. 43,362/- on the estimated price of Rs. 2,36,300/-. The complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum, which directed DDA to calculate the interest on Rs. 1,86,300/- and refund the balance amount with interest. DDA appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. It held that DDA was authorized to charge interest on the estimated cost of the flat, which was declared when the housing scheme was released. The Commission also held that the complainant's complaint was belated and not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues: 1. Whether DDA was entitled to charge interest on the estimated cost of the flat, which was higher than the final cost? 2. Whether the complainant's complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. DDA is authorized to charge interest on the estimated cost of the flat, which is declared when the housing scheme is released. This is because DDA constructs the flats with the allottee's money and is liable to refund any amount that may become due to the allottees because of a downward revision of the price with interest @ 10% p.a. 2. The complainant's complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it did not satisfy any of the points under Section 14 of the Act. There was no defect, no occasion for replacement of the goods, and no occasion to return the price paid by the complainant. The contract was also concluded.
Final Decision: The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. It held that DDA was authorized to charge interest on the estimated cost of the flat, which was declared when the housing scheme was released. The Commission also held that the complainant's complaint was belated and not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member— This is an appeal against the order of the District Forum-II dated 6.2.92 in complaint No. 1617/89. The facts of the case in brief are that Sh. B.K. Dogra, complainant before the District Forum. purchased a flat from DDA under Self Financing Scheme (SFS) in Kishan Garh (Pocket A). The estimated price of the flat was Rs. 2,36,300/-. However, the final cost of the flat was worked out by DDA as Rs. 1,86,300/- but he was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 43,362/-as interest by DDA on the estimated price of the flat of Rs. 2,36,300/-. He protested that the interest could not be related to and charged on the basis of higher hypothetical amount when the actual price of the flat is lower. He lodged a complaint in the District Forum on 18.10.89. The learned District Forum vide its order directed the DDA to calculate the interest on an amount of Rs. 1,86,300/- and to refund the balance amount to the respondent alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. on the refundable amount within a period of one month from the date of the order. It also awarded cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. The DDA has come up in appeal before us against the order of the District Forum.
2. The salient facts of the case have been given in our order dated 26.10.92. This order may be read in continuation of that order. In order to decide the appeal, it is necessary to give some more facts which are as follows :
The complainant Sh. Dogra, registered under Vth Self Financing Scheme, was originally registered for MIG flat in Trilok Puri on 18.1.83. He was allotted a flat on 2.8,85 and a possession letter was issued to him by the appellant on 11.11.85. However, Sh. Dogra requested for a change of category from MIG to SFS. Accordingly, he was allocated a flat in Sarita Vihar. On 24.3.86, he requested for a change of flat from Sarita Vihar to Kishan Garh (Pocket A). The appellant accepted his request and issued a final demand letter to him on 25.7.86. The relevant narration of the said demand letter reads as under : -
“That the flat being allotted is out of the earlier releases, the estimated cost of which at the time of initial release was Rs. 2,36,300/-.”
In addition to the above Shri B.K. Dogra was liable to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on the amount of instalments from respective due dates of payment as given below : -
Instalment Amount Due date
First Rs. 59,075/- 10.4.83
Second Rs. 47,260/- 10.10.83
Third Rs. 5,075/- 10.4.84
Fourth Rs. 47,260/- 10.10.84
The interest due on the payment of instalments was intimated to the complainant and the interest payable by the appellant, DDA, if any, for delay in construction was adjusted towards interest payable by Shri B.K. Dogra, respondent as stated earlier. A sum of Rs. 6,406.25 was adjusted by DDA on account of interest due to delay in construction.
3. The registrants under the Self Financing Scheme are required to deposit the payments of instalments based on the estimated cost of the flat in advance as per the schedule fixed by the DDA as the flats are constructed with the allottee’s money. If an allottee enters the scheme at a later stage, he. has to depositall the instalments as per time schedule given at the time of release of a specific scheme alongwith interest thereon to bring him at par with other original allottees of the said scheme. Thus, there is no discrimination between the respondent, Shri B.K. Dogra and other allottees. Generally, the final cost is marginally increased from the estimated cost. However, in the instant case, the final cost as worked out by Housing Account Costing (H.A.C.) came to Rs. 1,86,300/- which is lower that the estimated cost of Rs. 2,36,300/-.
4. The complaint filed before the District Forum by Shri B.K. Dogra, is that the D.D.A. has wrongly calculated the interest on the estimated cost of Rs. 2,36,300/- whereas it should have calculated interest on the actual cost of the flat that being Rs. 1,86,300/-. The learned District Forum has accordingly ordered the DDA to calculate
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.