Full Judgment
Lokeshwar Prasad, President:
1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Actâ), is directed against order dated 20.12.2002, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in two Complaint Cases bearing Nos. 1863/1997 and 2112/1997, both entitled - Shri Rajinder Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority.
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Rajinder Kumar, an allottee of Flat No. K-29A, Saket, New Delhi, had filed two complaints (Complaint Case No. 1863/1997 for allotment of scooter garage and Case No. 2112/1997 for allotment of a servant quarter and a car garage) under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum.
3. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there is no force in Complaint No. 2112/1997, filed by the appellant, for allotment of a servant quarter and a car garage. However, the other complaint, filed by the appellant, for allotment of a scooter garage has been allowed with the directions that the respondent DDA to allot scooter garage No. 48 to the appellant. The learned District Forum has also directed the respondent DDA to refund the amount of Rs. 500/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from 8.2.1990 till 13.7.1993.
4. As already stated, Complaint No. 2112/1997 filed for allotment of a servant quarter and a car garage was not allowed and it was held by the learned District Forum that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in not allotting the servant quarter and a car garage to the appellant.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is assailing the impugned order insofar as the same relates to the finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in not allotting a servant quarter and a car garage to the appellant. It is contended by him that in the given facts, the appellant was entitled for the allotment of a servant quarter and a car garage.
7. The only question requiring consideration in the present appeal is as to whether was there any deficiency in service on the part of respondent DDA in not allotting a servant quarter and a car garage to the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant was an allottee of Category-II flat and as per the policy and scheme of the respondent DDA, servant quarters and car garages were first to be allotted to the allottees of Category-III flats and after meeting their requirements, the claim of the persons under Category-II flats was to be considered. As the appellant was an allottee of Category-II flat, his turn could not come for allotment of servant quarter and car garage and, therefore, the same were not allotted to him. No fault can be found with the above finding of the learned District Forum in the given facts. In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well-reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in-limine with no orders as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.