IMPORTANT POINT
When there are no illegalities, material irregularities in the orders passed by the lower fora, the same cannot be interfered with in the revision petition.

C. Viswanath, Member—This Revision Petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 500/2010; dated 12.10.2012.

2. Smt. Nirmal Srivastava, booked an LIG Flat with the Petitioner/Opposite Party on 28.09.1979, by depositing a sum of Rs.1,500/-. She was allotted Flat No. 42 Ground Floor, Pocket-13, Sector-22, Rohini and was directed to deposit Rs.3,78,080.70 by 30.12.2001, vide demand letter dated 23.10.2001. On 28.11.2001 Smt. Nirmal Srivastava applied for transfer of allotment of the Flat in favour of her son, the Respondent/Complainant.

3. The Respondent states that all the requisite documents alongwith the application were given and confirmation amount of Rs.15,000/- was deposited with the Petitioner. When the transfer of the allotment was not done till 1.5.2006, the Respondent approached Lok-Adalat set up by the Petitioner. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the proceedings in the Lok Adalat, the Petitioner issued another demand letter dated 22.6.2006 directing the Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.3,81,861.50 towards cost of the Flat, which he deposited on 28.7.2006. However, the Petitioner further demanded a sum of Rs.3,83,468/- vide letter dated 14.8.2006 towards interest, restoration charges, late submission of documents, ground-rent surcharge and difference of conversion charges alongwith processing fee.

4. The Respondent objected to the additional demand, contending that his mother applied for transfer of Flat in his favour, duly submitting all the requisite documents, but the Petitioner took five years to effect the transfer on various pretexts. In fact, as per the Guidelines issued by the Petitioner Organisation, transfer of Flat has to be affected within sixty days of production of the documents.

5. The Respondent also approached the Central Information Commission. The Central Information Commissioner, after hearing the parties, observed that the DDA had delayed the transfer of the Flat due to which the Respondent is required to pay interest on the cost of the Flat.

6. District Forum vide order dated 24.5.2010 directed the Petitioner to deliver the possession of Flat No. 42, Pocket 13, Sector 22, Rohini, New Delhi and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the Respondent for having caused mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering, inclusive of litigation charges.

7. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner appealed before the State Commission contending that the Respondent was liable to deposit the demanded amount by 29.1.2002, whereafter, the allotment stood automatically cancelled. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent furnished all the required documents only on 6.10.2005 and transfer of allotment in his favour was allowed on 22.6.2006. Respondent was, then, asked to deposit Rs.3,81,861/- vide letter dated 22.6.2006, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the terms and conditions of the allotment would remain unchanged. The Respondent deposited the sum of Rs.3,81,861/- on 11.7.2006 which was the cost of the Flat prior to 29.1.2002. The Respondent was also required to pay a further sum of Rs.3,83,468/- on account of interest, delayed payments, restoration charges etc., which he has not done so far. Since the Respondent himself took a lot of time to furnish the documents including the FDR in original, which he submitted only on 6.10.2005, the Petitioner was entitled to charge statutory interest on the cost of the Flat.

8. The Petitioner pointed out certain deficiencies in the application for transfer of allotment on 11.12.2001, confirmation amount was not deposited, undertaking was not properly signed and the signatures of Smt. Nirmala Srivatava did not tally. The Respondent informed the Petitioner on 10.1.2002, that confirmation amount had already been deposited on 28.11.2001 and a