Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, P.M and Suresh Chandra, Member
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Appellant
Versus
SUDERSHAN BHARIJA - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 3354 of 2008. (Against the Order dated 16/05/2008 in Appeal No. 716 of 2005 of the State Commission Delhi).
Decided on : 15-07-2015
Girija Wadhwa, Advocate, for the Appellant; R.K. Kohli, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's actions constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Complaint - Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner, a housing authority, for not allotting a plot of land under the Rohini Scheme and for offering an old flat under the Narela Scheme, which was in a dilapidated condition. The petitioner failed to refund the registration amount deposited by the respondent and caused harassment and mental agony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had failed to allot a plot to the respondent for over 21 years, and then offered an old flat in a dilapidated condition under a new scheme. The court held that the petitioner's actions amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Issues: The issues involved whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and whether the petitioner had indulged in unfair trade practices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to allot a plot for over 21 years and then offering an old flat in a dilapidated condition under a new scheme constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The court also emphasized that the petitioner's actions were unjust and far from equity, fairness, and justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and awarded punitive damages of Rs. 5,00,000 to the respondent, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within eight weeks and recover it from the salaries of the delinquent officers who pursued the frivolous litigation.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, (P.M) - Petitioner/Respondent has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act) challenging the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 passed by State Commission, Delhi in F.A. No.716 of 2005, vide which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant filed a consumer complaint in year 2003 stating therein, that in year 1981, petitioner floated a scheme by the name of "LIG Rohini Residential Plotted Scheme, 1981" (for short, 'Rohini Scheme). Under the said scheme, registration were invited from general public fulfilling specific eligibility criteria for allotment of residential plots of land. The plots of land were to be allotted by draw of lots within five years of the launching of the scheme. Respondent applied for registration in the said Rohini Scheme and his application No.142142 in the said scheme was registered under the priority no.15139. An amount of Rs. 2,000/- was deposited. However, respondent received no allotment under the aforesaid scheme in last more than two decades.
3. In year 2002, petitioner floated another scheme by the name "Narela Housing Scheme, 2002". Brochure of the said scheme provided in Condition No.1, that waiting registrants of old scheme including Rohini Scheme, 1981 could also apply under this scheme for any category of flat as per their requirement. The flats picturized by the petitioner in its brochure were of 'A class construction. In the preamble to scheme, petitioner painted a very rosy picture of the scheme and compared it to other highly successful schemes, namely Rohini and Dwarka, reputation of which schemes are a matter of public knowledge. The respondent being desirous of obtaining a flat as he had been waiting for the last 20 years, filled up the required documents as laid down in condition no.7 of the said brochure. Respondent applied for an MIG flat in lieu of his old LIG flat under application No.1245. Vide its letter dated 5.7.2002, petitioner informed the respondent that flat no.560 of MIG category on fourth floor at Sector A-10, Pocket 6 of "Narela Housing Scheme" had been allotted to him. However, his utter shock, respondent found, that unit/flat being offered to him was an old construction, which had been constructed by the petitioner about 9-10 years back. The same was in dilapidated condition. There was no habitation in the area worth even the name. The condition of the area was totally contrary to the advertisement published by the petitioner. The brochure had depicted that plots of 'A class construction with other facilities to be provided to make the offer attractive for the applicants. Respondent immediately made an enquiry from the office of the petitioner. To his shock, he came to know that the flats being allotted to the respondent and other similarly situated allottees, were old flats which were built somewhere in 1995 or prior to that. It was clear from the conditions of the flat, that petitioner was trying to write off old flats to the public in general at a higher price without making them aware of its year/date of construction. The same amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
4. The respondent forthwith, wrote a letter dated 1.8.2002 to the petitioner for cancellation of the MIG flat No.560 allotted to him under Narela Scheme and also sent a D.D. of Rs. 1,000/- as cancellation charges as per the condition No.13(1) of the brochure. It is pertinent to mention here, that respondent had made it clear in the letter itself that his priority no. under the old Rohini Scheme shall be retained. In response to his request for cancellation of the Narela Flat, he received a letter dated 14.8.2002 from the petitioner in which respondent was informed that his priority number cannot be retained and he had the option either to accept the allotted unit or to submit the original documents of Rohini Scheme for refund of his registration mone
