Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President;
Mr. Desh Bandhu & Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Members
MRS. SUSHILA SALUJA—Complainant
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Respondent
Complaint No. C-256 of 1992—Decided on 6.10.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : Mr. S.S. Bhatia, Authorised Representative.
For the Respondent:Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate.
The pricing of flats and charging of interest as a component of the price cannot be adjudicated upon by consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 12, 17 - PRICING OF FLATS - INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENTS - RESTORATION CHARGES - REFUND - JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER FORA - DDA'S SELF FINANCING SCHEME - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Complainant registered with DDA under the Vth Self Financing Scheme, 1982, for a Category III flat, deposited Rs. 15,000/-, and was allocated a flat in Vasant Kunj. Due to financial problems, she surrendered the allotment in April 1985. Later, she applied for restoration of the allotment and was allocated another Category III flat in Vasant Kunj. She paid the restoration charges of Rs. 3,750/- and deposited Rs. 2,11,129/- as per the demand letter. DDA informed her that the final cost of the flat was Rs. 2,89,000/- and she was asked to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,41,364.85, including Rs. 1,33,957.50 as interest on late payments of installments. Complainant challenged the interest amount and sought a refund of the restoration charges and interest on the amount paid for delayed construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the question of pricing of a flat cannot be adjudicated upon by consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act. The interest charged on late payments of installments was in accordance with the policy of DDA's Self Financing Scheme, which was accepted by the complainant when she took over the possession of the flat. The court also found that the complainant was not entitled to a refund of the restoration charges or interest on the amount paid for delayed construction.
Issues: 1. Whether the pricing of flats and charging of interest as a component of the price can be adjudicated upon by consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act? 2. Whether the complainant was liable to pay interest on late payments of installments as per the policy of DDA's Self Financing Scheme? 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the restoration charges and interest on the amount paid for delayed construction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on several precedents of the National Commission, which held that the question of pricing of flats and charging of interest as a component of the price cannot be adjudicated upon by consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The court found that the interest charged on late payments of installments was in accordance with the policy of DDA's Self Financing Scheme, which was accepted by the complainant when she took over the possession of the flat. 3. The court held that the complainant was not entitled to a refund of the restoration charges or interest on the amount paid for delayed construction, as there was no default on the part of DDA.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs.
Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member—The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to ‘as the Act’) against Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as the opposite party (OP)].
2. The facts, briefly stated are, that the complainant got herself registered with the opposite party, under the Vth Self Financing Scheme, 1982, for a Category III flat, and deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- vide receipt No. 10100 dated 3.8.1982. Thereafter, the opposite party allocated a flat to the complainant in Pocket 8, Sector C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi vide allocation-cum-demand letter dated 20.1.1984. The complainant deposited only one instalment and due to financial problems surrendered the said allotment, in April, 1985. Later, on 20.10.1986, the complainant applied for the restoration of the allotment of the flat and also personally met the concerned official of the opposite party. In response to her above representation the opposite party finally allocated another Category III flat in Sector-B, Pocket IX, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi vide letter dated 7.3.1988. The complainant also paid the restoration charges, amounting to Rs. 3,750/- on 4.4.1988 as per the requirement and policy of the opposite party. Thereafter, vide letter dated 21.4.1988 the opposite party informed the complainant that on the basis of draw of lots, held on 22.2.1988, she had been allotted a flat in Sector-B, Pocket-IX, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and the estimated cost of the flat would be Rs. 2,53,000/-. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,11,129/- in the first week of September, 1988, as per the demand letter of the opposite party dated 9.8.1988. It is alleged that the opposite party vide letter dated 27.6.1989, informed the complainant that a flat No. 6332 in Sector-B, Pocket IX, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi had been allotted to her on the basis of lots held on 21.3.1989. It was also intimated that the final cost of the flat in question had been worked out to Rs, 2,89,000/- and as such, the complainant was asked to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,41,364.85 paise, which included Rs. 1,33,957.50 paise being the interest chargeable on account of late payments of instalments. The opposite party, however, gave a discount of Rs. 50,936.65 paise payable to the complainant on account of interest on delayed construction. The grievance of the complainant, in the present complaint, is that the opposite party has wrongly charged interest amounting to Rs. 1,33,957.50. It is further stated that the complainant is also entitled to the refund of the restoration charges and also to interest on Rs. 50,936.65 paid to her on account of late construction. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay/refund a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of realisation till payment.
3. The opposite party in the written statement/written version has taken several preliminary objections including the objection that the present complaint does not fall under the purview of the Act. On merits it has been contended that the amount of Rs. 1,33,957.50 has been rightly charged in accordance with Clause 3 of the allocation-cum-demand letter dated 9.8.1988. It has further been contended that the amount of restoration charges has been rightly charged and also that the amount of interest of Rs. 50,936.65 paise payable on account of belated construction has been rightly calculated, as per policy, upto the date of issue of Vth and final demand. It has been further pointed out that the payments had been made by the complainant without any protest and as such, her complaint is not maintainable and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. Both the parties have filed affidavits by way of evidence alongwith the relevant documents in support of their respective contentions.
5. We have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties as well as have carefully
