Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1210
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, Member
SH. DINESH CHANDRA SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
DDA – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 210/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. K. Sharma
For the Respondents: Praduman Kumar Aggarwal
A respondent authority cannot charge enhanced rates for flat allotment if the delay in issuing the demand-cum-allotment letter is attributable to the authority itself.
Headnote:The matter pertains to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, concerning the allotment of an alternative flat. The consumer had previously obtained orders from the State Commission, National Commission, and Supreme Court directing the respondent authority to provide an alternative flat of the same description and conditions. However, the respondent issued a demand-cum-allotment letter charging current market rates (Rs. 16,12,613/-) instead of the original booking price (Rs. 5,03,348/-). The District Commission subsequently directed the respondent to issue a fresh demand based on the original cost plus 6% interest. The primary issue before the court was whether the order of the District Commission regarding the pricing of the flat suffered from any infirmity. The court reasoned that when the delay in issuing the allotment-cum-demand letter is attributable to the respondent authority, the respondent cannot charge enhanced rates from the petitioner, as the consumer should not be penalized for the authority's administrative delays. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. execution of previous orders regarding flat allotment and pricing disputes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions regarding contract principles and the maintainability of pricing disputes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. prohibition of charging enhanced rates when delay is caused by the authority. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. dismissal of appeal and upholding the lower commission's order. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
CORAM:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. A. K. Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“It appears that the JD DDA is now preparing for second round of litigation after taking the complaint case upto the Apex Court. The Complainant DH filed the complaint case No. 226/10 against the OP JD on 08.05.08 (sic) for issuing directions to the OP JP to give allotment of the alternative flat and compensation of Rs.1 lac and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. OP JD contested the case. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.10 passed by our predecessors. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant DH filed First Appeal No. 2010/705 before this Delhi State Commission who vide order dated 15.01.13 allowed the appeal and issued the following directions to the OP JD/Respondent:-
“… Respondent will return back all the amount of Rs.30,000/- hitherto received by it, and will provide the complainant another flat of the same description, on the same conditions in the same locality or nearby. In case no flat is available, the respondent DDA will pay, the appellant Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lac) because of sky rocketing prices, and since the flat was booked for Rs.5,03,348/- in the year 1996-1997, Rs.24,96,652/- (Rs. Twenty Four Lac Ninety Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty Two only) as the escalated amount will payable. Flat is to be allotted within 30 days, and if no flat is available, payment is also to be made within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.”
(Emphasis supplied by us) The OP/JD/DDA filed Revision Petition No.895/13 before the National Commission. Vide order dated 18.02.14 the National Commission dismissed the revision petition by imposing Rs.5 lacs as punitive damages upon the OP/JD. The SLP (C) No. 9335/14 (Civil Appeal No. 910/2016) filed by the OP/JD was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 05.02.16 but by setting-aside the requirement of the OP/JD depositing cost. The OP/JD thereafter issued demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.07.16 thereby allotting flat No. 648 (ground floor), Pocket 6, Sector B4, GR P 2, Narela, Delhi to the Complainant DH by directing the Complainant DH to pay Rs.16,12,613/- towards the land cost, construction cost and other charges. To this, objection was taken by the DH that he is liable to pay only Rs.5,03,348/- as the original price of the flat to the JD instead of Rs. 16,12,613/- as demanded in the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.07.16. Copy of the original demand-cum-allotment letter has been placed on the record. The same is for the block date 12-1-2000 - 20-1-2000 and is in respect of house No. 440, Type A 2 Pocket 6, Sector B4, Narela and a demand of Rs.5,03,848.75p has been made towards the cost price of the said flat.”
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 15.01.2018, whereby it held as under:
“We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties.. Arguments on behalf of the OP/ JD is that the question relating to the costing of the flat cannot be considered by this Forum and, therefore, the demand made vide demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.07.16 cannot be decided by this Forum. In support of this contention our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Delhi State Commission in FA No. 411/16 Smt. Shakuntala Singh Vs. DDA d
