IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Government Agency - Except when perversity or illegality in Government agency actions is conclusively established, which incidentally is neither alleged nor established in the instant case, it would be manifestly unfair to penalise them with such a harsh order.
(2) Reassess and reappreciate - National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Commission is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record if findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This review petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 352 of 2010 dated 21.04.2016 setting aside the order of the District Forum (Central), Delhi (in short, ‘District Forum’) dated 12.04.2010 directing the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs 3,000/- with 18% interest per annum from 27.12.1985 along with compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent for harassment and mental agony, to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund and pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation costs to the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), a statutory body of the State government under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 launched a Residential Flats Registration Scheme for slum dwellers and others in 1985 through the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The period of registration was from 21.11.1985 to 30.12.1985 and was intended for residents with a food card of areas notified as slums under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1985, jhuggi jhopries, slum rehabilitation colonies, JJ resettlement colonies and unauthorized colonies in urban villages in Delhi. The initial deposit fixed was Rs.3,000/- and 27,693 applications were received by DDA.

3. As the respondent was not allotted a flat, he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi (Complaint No. 541 of 2008) stating that he had applied under the said scheme on 27.12.1985 but had subsequently withdrawn the amount on 14.09.1987 and was refunded Rs 3,385/- with interest @ 7%. However, he was asked by the authorities to re-apply and accordingly he had deposited Rs.3,385/- on 20.02.1988 again. As no flat had been allotted to him, the respondent prayed for allotment of a flat along with damages of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-. This complaint was contested by the petitioner herein on grounds that the Priority No. of the respondent was 12929 under General category and that only Priority No. 2650 had been reached under the scheme. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that there was no time frame fixed for the scheme and therefore no violation of the scheme was attributable to the petitioner. No deficiency was also alleged as Priority Number had not been violated.

4. The respondent challenged this order before the State Commission in First Appeal No. 352 of 2010. Vide order dated 21.4.2016, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that as no flat had been allotted despite 30 years having passed since the scheme was launched, deficiency was well established. It also concluded insensitivity and negligence on part of the petitioner herein and ordered as under:—

7. The only controversy before me is that as to whether the shelter board is ‘deficient in service’ in not allotting the flat to the complainant in a span of thirty years. Complainant admittedly deposited an amount of Rs.3000/- on 27.12.1985. Perusal of the brochure of the scheme 1985 floated by the shelter board shows that it had promised to allot singly storyed houses which were fully ventilated and fitted with all the facilities. It was specifically mentioned that houses would be allotted without loss of much time (paragraph 2 of the scheme 1985, Hindi version). Clearly a period thirty years has elapsed. In its written arguments, shelter board stated that it has so far allotted flats upto the priority number 2650/G. Priority number of the complainant is 12929/G. In a period of thirty years, shelter board has allotted flats only to 2650 persons. At this pace, the complainant shall have to wait for 150 years. Can it still be terms as, ‘no deficiency of service’?

8. It is a matter of common knowledge that the amount of Rs.3000/- had