Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President; Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav,
Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Dr. (Mrs.) R. Thamarajakshi & Mr. S.P. Bagla, Members
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Petitioner
versus
KAMINI CHOPRA—Respondent
Revision Petition No. 787 of 1994—Decided on 12.1.1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Usha Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. G.S. Aneja, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(b) - Revision to National Commission - Price of Rat - Paid by instalments - Refund of interest on it - District Forum directed the complainant to approach Civil Court - Delhi State Commission held it to be a consumer dispute necessitating accounting by DDA - Revision - Whether Consumer For a can consider the determination of interest on instalments paid as price of flat? (No). (Para 3)
Result: Revision allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Question of pricing of flat cannot be gone into by the Consumer Fora under COPRA 1986, so question of refund of interest on instalments paid towards price of flat cannot be decided by Consumer Fora, it can be decided by Civil Court.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member—This Revision Petition has arisen out of the order dated 26th May, 1994 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. A-20/91 by which the State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the present Respondent, Smt. Kamini Chopra, who was complainant in the Original Complaint, against the present Appellant, Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA). In that Appeal Delhi Administration was also arrayed as respondent but, as it has nothing to do with the matter it has not been joined in the present Revision Petition filed by the DDA.
2. By the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the orders of the District Forum, Delhi which had directed the Complainant to approach Civil Court as there was controversy between the parties regarding the amount which the DDA is liable to pay to the complainant, Smt. Kamini Chopra and thus the dispute necessitated accounting. Present Petitioner had been arrayed as opposite party in the complaint.
3. It is not necessary to go in detail into the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the State Commission vide the impugned order held that the facts of the present case are similar to the ones in DDA v. A.N. Sehgal (A-89/92) decided on 22nd September, 1993 and the ratio of that case was fully applicable to the facts of the present case and consequently it directed the DDA to work out interest on the instalments deposited by the complainant as observed in the Sehgal’s case and refund the amount of interest to the complainant. Against the order passed in the Sehgal’s case DDA filed Revision Petition No. 578 of 1994 before this Commission. It was decided on 30th October, 1995. In that case, this Commission had held that the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Interest is one of the components taken into consideration while determining the price of the flat which is the subject matter in the present case. That order fully covers the present case. Accordingly, we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant respondent. We make no order as to costs.
Revision Petition allowed.
