IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 19.12.2022 Date of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 507/2003 IN THE MATTER OF MR. F.S. CHAUHAN, FLAT NO. 22C, POCKET-A, SFS FLATS, MAYUR VIHAR-III, DELHI – 110096.

(Through: Mr. F. S. Chauhan, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIKAS SADAN (NEAR INA MARKET), NEW DELHI–110023.

(Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Appellant in person (he himself is a practicing counsel, E-mail:

fschauhan123@gmail.com.

Ms. Arti Bansal, Counsel for the Respondent, E-mail:

artibansalbansal0326@gmail.com.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case, as per the District Commission record, are:

“Shri Chauhan has filed the complaint claiming Rs.4.56,395/- for the loss and damages suffered by him on various counts mainly interest and lack of basic facilities in the flat allotted to him by DDA. It has been stated that he was allotted a flat in Kondli, Gharoli and demand cum allotment letter was issued at an estimated cost of Rs.5.39,700/- in May, 91 and tentative period of completion was stated to be 2 ½ years. Complainant had deposited Rs.4.94,600/-by 01.02.1993 in installments. Final demand-cum-allotment letter was issued on 14.09 1996 mentioning Rs.5,51,487/- as the final cost of the flat. He was also required to deposit Rs.44,000/- with the Collector of Stamps and pay maintenance charges @ 2% % of the cost of the flat i.e. Rs.813/- per month. He requested for refund of the excess amount so that he could use the amount for meeting other liabilities but no response was given. Construction was also delayed and petition in the State Commission was filed in 1993 and it was assured by counsel of opposite party that interest for delayed construction would be paid but complainant was not handed over possession as per their own terms and conditions of allotment letter given. Hence the complaint.

DDA in reply took the plea of limitation because possession was handed over on 12.06 1993 and complaint has been filed on 23.09.1999 i.e. after more than two years. It was also stated that in the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 14.09.1996 it was intimated that as per scheme get the conveyance deed papers duly stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps (as it was a freehold flat) and submit the same within 120 days failing which maintenance charges Rs.813/- per month would be payable enough be wrote on 10.10.1996 for refund of excess money, the same could not be returned without submission of required documents. This excess amount refunded on 13.03.1997 and possession letter was issued on 17.03.1997.

As per policy, interest for delayed construction is to be paid up to the period when demand cum allotment letter is issued assuring for payment of fifth and final installment. Interest up to the date i.e. 14.09.1996 has been paid and nothing more is due.

Parties have filed evidence by way of affidavits. Relevant documents have also been filed.”

2. The District Commission, after taking into consideration the material available on record, passed the order dated 05.02.2003, whereby it held as under:

“We have heard the parties at length. Complainant submitted application for the condonation of delay on the ground that the State Commission while dismissing his petition had directed the complainant to file fresh complaint after taking over possession. Though he had taken the possession on 12.06.1997, all the facilities were not provided which were provided after November 1998 and it is only after the date that the flat became fit for occupation. Though cause of action are continued, as an abundant caution and in the spirit of order dated 29.07.1994 of the State Commission, he filed the complaint only after running of damages stopped so that question of damages also could be taken up.

We have give