Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member, Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Delhi Development Authority, Through its Director (H-II), Delhi Development
Authority & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Shri Parveen Kumar & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.3649 & 4051 of 2014
Decided on 29.1.2015

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners In R.P.No.3649 of 2014:Mr. Praduman Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate
For the Respondents In R.P.No.3649 of 2014:Ms. Deepakshi Jain, Advocate proxy for Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate
For the Petitioner In R.P.No.4051 of 2014:Mr. T.N. Saxena, Advocate with Mr. Vipin Kumar Saxena, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
A person who gets himself registered for allotment of flat and is awaiting allotment would be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d)—Real estate—Allotment of residential flat—A person who is allotted a flat or a plot to be developed by a statutory authority, would be a ‘consumer’ within meaning of Section 2(1) (d)—If however, flat/plot is sold by such a statutory authority by way of a public auction on ‘as is where is’ basis and such sale is not accompanied by an obligation to carry out any further development such as providing/augmenting infrastructural facilities viz. roads, sewerage, electricity, water facilities etc., purchaser shall not be a ‘consumer’ within meaning of Section 2(1)(d). (Para 11)
       (B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d), 15, 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Allotment of residential flat—Forfeiture of advance amount on ground of submission of more than one application—District forum directed Delhi Development Authority to refund amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to complainants along with 9% interest, compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.1,000/-—A person who applies for allotment of a plot/flat is concerned, he will not be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) if neither any allotment is made to him nor he is registered for and awaiting such an allotment—Such a person cannot be said to have hired or availed services of development authority in connection with housing—Mere submission of application for allotment which does not result either in allotment or registration and consequent inclusion in awaiting list for such an allotment, does not confer upon him status of a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1) (d)—However, a person who gets himself registered for such allotment and is awaiting allotment would be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) since by paying registration money and awaiting allotment, he can be said to have availed or hired the services of concerned development authority in connection with housing construction—It would be immaterial in such a case whether house is to be constructed by development authority or by registrants—Petitions partly allowed. (Paras 13 to 23)
       Result: Revision Petitions Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

R.P.No.3649 of 2014

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—Parveen Kumar, one of the complainants in this case, applied to the petitioner Delhi Development Authority under its Housing Scheme 2010 for allotment of a residential flat. Another application for similar allotment was submitted by him in the joint name of himself and his father Shri Sham lal. No allotment was made to them. Rather they received a letter from Delhi Development Authority stating therein that since they had violated the terms & conditions of the scheme by submitting more than one application, amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each deposited by them has been forfeited. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid forfeiture the aforesaid complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint impleading not only the Delhi Development Authority but also the Punjab National Bank through Mansa Branch to which the applications were submitted.

2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party, Delhi Development Authority inter alia on the grounds that the District Forum at Mansa had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainants were not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, they having deposited only the registration money and no allotment having been made to them. On merits, the forfeiture was defended on the ground that the complainants had submitted two applications for allotment of residential flats, thereby contravening the terms & conditions of the scheme under which the applications were submitted.

3. The District forum vide its order dated 13-03-2012 directed Delhi Development Authority to refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainants along with interest on the said amount at the rate of 9% per annum. The opposite party No.3 was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.2 5,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.1,000/- to the complainants.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner Delhi Development Authority approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The opposite party No.2-Punjab National Bank also filed a separate appeal. The appeal filed by Punjab National Bank was allowed whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner Delhi Development Authority was dismissed. Being aggrieved from dismissal of the appeal filed by it, Delhi Development Authority is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

R.P. No.4051 of 2014

5. The complainant in the aforesaid case deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- with the petitioner for registration under weaker income category and a registration certificate dated 08-07-1986 was issued to him. No house, however, was allotted to him. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum seeking a direction to the petitioner to allot a house to him.

6. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that only registrants upto the year 1979 have been partially allotted houses and the name of the complainant would be included in the draw of lots in due course. It was also stated in the reply that if the complainant wants vacant house in Krishna Vihar Scheme then she would give her consent in the office of the petitioner board. The petitioner also took an objection that since the complainant does not come in the category of consumer the District Forum does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

7. The District Forum vide its order dated 28-10-1997 directed the petitioner to allot a house to the complainant within one month, in the scheme in which he had got registered. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 24-04-2014 the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the board. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission the complainant is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTA person who gets himself registered for allotment of flat and is awaiting allotment would be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
A person who gets himself registered for allotment of flat and is awaiting allotment would be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act.