K.C. Jain vs. D.D.a.

K.C. Jain vs D.D.A.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi Decided Aug 31, 1994

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1114265

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1114265
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Judge: Justice R.N. Mittal, President &Amp; the Honourable Ms. Justice Dr. a.N. Saxena, Member
Decided On: Aug 31, 1994
Case Number: Case No. A-165 of 1992
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Comparative Citations: 1995 (1) CLT 515, 1995 (1) CPR 138, 1995 (1) CPJ 348

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K.C. Jain

Respondent

D.D.A.

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - comparative citations: 1995 (1) clt 515, 1995 (1) cpr 138, 1995 (1) cpj 348r.n. mittal, president: 1. this appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the district forum (df) dated 1-992 by which his complaint was dismissed. 2. briefly the facts are that the complainant applied for a flat in 1987 under retired persons category to the dda and a flat was allotted to him by them in may '89. he had made that application on the basis that he had applied for voluntary retirement. in december '87 his application was rejected by the government. after the rejection of the application he did not remain eligible for allotment of the flat. 3. however, he was allocated a flat in 1989. he had deposited the price of the flat in instalments as required. the o.p. after allocation of the flat asked him to furnish retirement certificate which he failed to do. consequently his allotment was cancelled. it is stated by him that he is entitled to interest on the amount deposited by him with the dda. 4. the complaint was contested by the o.p. they inter alia pleaded that the complainant concealed the material facts regarding his retirement and therefore, he was allotted a flat. if it had been brought to the notice of the o.p. that his application for voluntary retirement had been rejected, he would not have been allotted the flat. 5. the district forum dismissed the complaint holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant was not entitled to any interest. he has come up in appeal. 6. we have heard the appellant in person and the learned counsel for the o.p. after hearing them we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the order of the district forum. it was the duty of the appellant to have informed the dda in december '87 that his application for voluntary retirement had been rejected. however, with the intention to get the flat, to which he would not have been otherwise entitled, he concealed the fact. it was not expected of any retired government servant especially of him, who was holding responsible post in.....

Full Judgment

R.N. Mittal, President:

1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum (DF) dated 1-992 by which his complaint was dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant applied for a flat in 1987 under retired persons category to the DDA and a flat was allotted to him by them in May '89. He had made that application on the basis that he had applied for voluntary retirement. In December '87 his application was rejected by the government. After the rejection of the application he did not remain eligible for allotment of the flat.

3. However, he was allocated a flat in 1989. He had deposited the price of the flat in instalments as required. The O.P. after allocation of the flat asked him to furnish retirement certificate which he failed to do. Consequently his allotment was cancelled. It is stated by him that he is entitled to interest on the amount deposited by him with the DDA.

4. The complaint was contested by the O.P. They inter alia pleaded that the complainant concealed the material facts regarding his retirement and therefore, he was allotted a flat. If it had been brought to the notice of the O.P. that his application for voluntary retirement had been rejected, he would not have been allotted the flat.

5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant was not entitled to any interest. He has come up in appeal.

6. We have heard the appellant in person and the Learned Counsel for the O.P. After hearing them we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum. It was the duty of the appellant to have informed the DDA in December '87 that his application for voluntary retirement had been rejected. However, with the intention to get the flat, to which he would not have been otherwise entitled, he concealed the fact. It was not expected of any retired government servant especially of him, who was holding responsible post in MTNL.

7. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the decision of the District Forum is correct and there is no scope for interference with it.

For the aforesaid reasons we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs. Costs Rs. 500/-.

Appeal dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New ... Same Parties K.C. Jain vs D.D.A. Same Subject Property Same Judge Justice R.N. Mittal, President &Amp; the Honourable Ms. Justi...

Property