Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2839
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER, HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITA VICE CHAIRMAN – Appellant
Versus
TRINATH KHERA S/O MR. DIYAL KHERA – Respondent
Revision Petition No. NC/RP/404/2024 | NC/IA/2290/2024 | NC/IA/2291/2024 | NC/IA/9928/2024 | NC/IA/15671/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS. VRINDA KAPOOR, MR. VISHAL VAID
For the Respondents: MR. KSHITIZ KHERA
Administrative negligence invalidated claims against consumer entitlement to redress in flat allotment case.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(1)(b) - Revision Petition - Allotment of flat - Complainant applied for allotment under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, but faced delays for decades - District Forum ruled in favor of Complainant citing deficiency in service - Appellant challenged non-cancelation of allotment. (Paras 5, 12, 14)
(B) Allotment process - The court emphasized the need for timely communication and adherence to obligations by both parties in the allotment agreement - The Complainant demonstrated intent to comply, while the Appellant failed to provide a lawful payment schedule.
Facts of the case:
The Complainant applied for an allotment of a flat and after numerous delays, the allotment was purportedly cancelled, which prompted the complaint. The District Forum ruled in favor of the Complainant, directing the Appellant to fulfill its obligations.
Findings of Court:
The concurrent rulings by the lower forums held that the Appellant could not evade responsibility under false claims of cancellation and must provide timely compensation or an alternative flat.
Issues: Whether the allotment was cancelled legitimately, the adequacy of communication from the Appellant, and what constitutes deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative lethargy on part of the Appellant invalidated its claims of lawful cancellation and emphasized consumer entitlement to redress after such delays.
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. commencement of proceedings under the consumer protection act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of the flat allotment application and subsequent issues faced by the complainant. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments from both parties regarding the allotment and customer service. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's evaluation of the service deficiency and the resulting judgment. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 05.10.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 513/2011 in which order dated 01.08.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 886/04 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA/513/2011 and Complainant before the District Forum in CC/886/2004.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 22.02.2024. In response to the notice on memorandum of appeal, Respondent filed submissions on 01.05.2024. Respondent also filed an application under order XII, Rule 6 of CPC on 26.06.2024. On 25.11.2024, the Petitioner filed reply to the application filed by the Respondent and the Respondent filed rejoinder/response to reply filed by the Petitioner to the said application on 16.12.2024. The Respondent has also filed the documents in compliance of the order dated 15.04.2025 of this Commission and has also filed written synopsis.
4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-
The Complainant applied to the OP under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, for allotment of a MIG flat by depositing a registration amount of Rs. 4,500/- on 24.10.1979, pursuant to which the OP issued a Certificate of Registration dated 04.06.1980. The Complainant alleges that after receiving no response for 4–5 years, he wrote to the OP on 03.08.1984 but received no reply. After a prolonged gap of 18 years, he received a communication dated 29.03.1997 informing him of the allotment of Flat No. 00148 (Ground Floor), Sector-23, Pocket-2, Rohini, through a draw held on 07.08.1996. The Complainant received the allotment letter only after the payment deadline of 03.12.1996 had already lapsed. He promptly sought an extension of time but did not receive any response. Nevertheless, on 19.04.1997, he voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and duly informed the OP. On 09.02.1999, he reiterated his willingness to comply with all obligations and conveyed his intention to pay the full amount in lump sum, expressing disinterest in availing the hire-purchase scheme. Despite repeated visits and follow-up communications, including his letter dated 19.02.2002, the Complainant alleges that no response was received from the OP. He thereafter submitted a representation to the Vice Chairman of DDA and approached the Public Grievances Cell of the Cabinet Secretariat.
Upon failure of these efforts, the Complainant instituted the consumer complaint.
5. Vide Order dated 01.08.2011, in the CC no. 886/2004, while allowing the complaint, the District Forum passed the following order:
“xxxx
11. In view of the above, it is concluded that OP has remained deficient in providing the adequate service to the complainant. Thus, we hold the OP guilty for the same and direct the OP to allot MIG Flat to the complainant in the same locality, at the original cost to be pa
