IMPORTANT POINT
Non-consideration for allotment for failure to fulfill obligation to pay all installments in time, cannot be the cause for any mental agony or torture.

Vinay Kumar, Member—This appeal is filed by Col. A K Sharma against the Delhi Development Authority. The appellant has challenged the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC number C -652/1993, passed on 28.2.0006. The Appellant/complainant, Col. Sharma has sought enhancement of the quantum of compensation. In the impugned order, he has been awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs 50,000. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant/complainant received a cheque for this amount from the DDA and was

permitted to encash the same ‘ without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant.’

2. The Delhi Development Authority has thus complied with the impugned order. However, it has not appealed against it. Therefore, the impugned order has acquired finality vis-à-vis the respondent/DDA. The consideration of the present appeal is accordingly limited to the question whether the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned order is adequate or not.

3. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 49 days. The explanation given in the application for condonation of delay has been considered. We also note that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant could not have gained in any manner, from this delay. It is therefore, condoned.

4. The facts in very brief, are that the complainant Col Sharma had applied for allotment of a flat under the self financing scheme (SFS) in 1982. The respondent/DDA informed in 1984 that he had been found eligible for allotment of a flat in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The DDA gave the complainant a payment schedule for a total sum of Rs 2,55,000 including Rs 15,000 already deposited by him. The complainant remitted the entire amount, with the last installment of Rs 26,000 being paid by a bank draft of 16.12.1986. After waiting for one year, he made enquiries and learnt from the office of the DDA that the flats have already been allotted to other applicants. His case was not considered as he had failed to pay Rs 26,000 within the stipulated time.

5. On further follow up by the complainant, the respondent/DDA eventually allotted a flat in Vasant Kunj and its possession was given to him on 21.3.1993. Three months later, the complainant gave a legal notice to the respondent seeking interest of 18% on the amount of Rs 2,34,525 from 1984 till 1993 and refund of Rs 3,78,569, subsequently deposited by him, for obtaining possession of the flat. Having failed to get the desired response from the respondent, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Delhi State Commission in November 1993.

6. The response of the DDA before the State Commission was that the SFS scheme is meant for providing flats to the applicants on cost basis, without charging any profit, whatsoever. The complainant, it is alleged, has not come with clean hands. He did not deposit the last installment within the stipulated time limit. It was deposited after the due date. It was pointed out on behalf of the DDA that the last installment was payable by 16.2.1986 but it was paid on 13.1.1987 i.e. with a delay of 11 months. Therefore, in terms of the conditions communicated in the demand letter of 16.7.1984, the allotment stood automatically cancelled. It was however, admitted by the respondent/DDA that the letter of 4.2.1987, confirming the allotment of a flat to the complainant, was issued ‘inadvertently and without linking up the proof of payment made by the complainant’. But, subsequently, due to the availability of a flat for the complainant, a letter was issued to him on 19.2.1990 offering one.

7. The case of the respondent is that the complainant cannot take any benefit from his own wrong committed in breach of the terms and conditions of allotment caused by failure to pay the fourth installment within the prescribed time limit. It is admitted in the complaint petition that the last installment of Rs.26,000 reached the DDA on 9.1.1987. A receipt was also issued to the complainant f