Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 944
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD – Appellant
Versus
DESH RAJ – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 2208 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NEMO
For the Respondents: IN PERSON
Service providers must adhere to reasonable timeframes for fulfilling obligations, and excessive delays can constitute a deficiency in service regardless of whether a specific timeframe is established.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Review petition challenging State Commission's order setting aside the District Forum's ruling - Deficiency in services for not allotting flat for 30 years established - Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- reduced to Rs.50,000/- with interest upon review. (Paras 4, 10, 11)
(B) Deficiency in Service - A service provider cannot delay allotment indefinitely - Failure to provide services constitutes negligence irrespective of a lack of fixed time frames. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a complaint for not being allotted a flat after depositing Rs.3,000/- in a scheme designed for slum dwellers more than thirty years ago, nor did he receive an alternative offered scheme by DDA despite multiple reapplications.
Findings of Court:
While there was an inordinate delay in allotment which indicated service deficiency, the previous excessive compensation awarded was modified, reflecting fairness and justice.
Issues: Whether the shelter board was deficient in service after prolonged delay in allotment and the appropriateness of the awarded compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that neither excessive delay nor lack of a timeframe excuses the responsibility of a service provider, leading to a modification of the excessive compensation previously ordered.
Result: Revision petition allowed in part, modifying compensation and repayment obligations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of complaint concerning flat allotment under the scheme. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments around the delay and compensation related to service deficiency. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations about service obligations and statutory duties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. modification of compensation reflects court's decision on reasonableness. (Para 10) |
| 5. final directives on repayment and conditions for compliance. (Para 11) |
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, shel
