Lal Chand Vs. D.D.A.

R.N. Mittal, President:

1.  Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant got himself registered with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 31.1.79 for a flat and deposited Rs. 10,000/- at that time as required under the Scheme.

2. It is pleaded that the DDA had promised to give him a flat within 30 months from the date of registration. However, instead of providing a flat they issued a letter dated 4.8.82 to the complainant informing him about the allocation of a flat and asked him to make the payments in 5 instalments, out of which first instalment was of Rs. 51,250/- including the amount of Rs. 10,000/- already deposited-payable by 23.9.82; 2nd instalment of Rs. 41,000/-payable by 3.3.83; 3rd instalment of Rs. 51,250/-payableby 3.9.83; 4th instalment of Rs. 41,000/- payable by 3.3.84 and the 5th and final instalment of 10% of the estimated cost and difference between the cost of dwelling unit on completion and estimated cost by the date to be communicated later. It was stated that for the 5th instalment a separate letter would be issued indicating the date of deposit. It is alleged that the complainant deposited all the instalments with the DDA and the possession of the flat was given to him on 11th May, 1987.

3. It is averred that the flat was not in a habitable condition and required extensive repairs and many replacements. He got the repairs and replacement done at his own cost and was entitled to be reimbursed. He also claimed damages on the ground that the possession of the flat was given to him late. He furlher claimed certain other amounts from the defendant. The detailed claim of the complainant is as follows : -

1.	On account of interest @ 24% on the amount deposited by him.	Rs. 2,25,418.00
2.	Excess amount deposited by the complainant at the instance of the D.D. A.	Rs. 45,700.00
3.	The amounts got deposited by the DDA to which it was not entitled :	Rs. 1,051.00
	Rs. 45.00
	Rs. 210.00
	Rs. 696.25
	Rs. 100.00
4.	Cost incurred by the complainant for repairs/replacements	Rs. 6,450.00
5.	Damages suffered by the complainant because of late delivery of the possession of the flats	Rs. 3,36,000.00
	Total	Rs. 6,14,619.00
	Less interest paid by D.D.A.	Rs. 14,385.00
		Rs. 6,00,234.00

4. The claim has been contested by the D.D.A. They have inter-aliapleaded that the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is alleged that at the time of taking over possession of the flat the complainant inspected the same, made an inventory of the items fitted therein and gave the report duly signed to the officer of the DDA that the building and the fittings were in order. In the report he did not point-out any defect in walls, floors, roofs, doors, windows, ventilators, finishing, water supply, sanitation etc. and therefore he cannot point out the defects later. They also controverted other allegations of the complainant

5. From the claim made by the complainant against the DDA it is evident that he by paying an amount of Rs. 2,57,000/- as the cost of the flat, claimed an amount more than Rs. 6 lakhs as damages etc. The consumers, in some cases, make highly exaggerated claims. The Forums/Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act are courts of equity and the consumers are expected to come with clean hands. It is true that the Forums/Commissions have to protect the consumer against the onslaught of the trader but that does not mean that whatever is claimed by the consumer, that should be allowed to him. The claim of the claimant is to be decided keeping in the mind the above observations. We shall now discuss each claim of the complainant adriatim.

Item No. 1 : The claim of the complainant is,

“I.	Interest on Rs. 10,000 @ 24% for 44 months.	Rs. 8,800
	Interest on 4 instalments @ 24% for 18 months.	Rs. 56,568
	Interest on 1,84,500 @ 24% for 45 months.	Rs. 1,66,050
		Rs. 2,31,418
	Less for first 30 months on 10,000/-	Rs.6,000
	Amount due	Rs. 2,25,418”

Interest has been paid by the DDA to the complainant at the rate of 7% per annum as agreed between the parties. He is not entitled to any further interest Consequently we reject the claim of Rs. 2,25,418/- claimed by the complainant.

Item No. 2 : The claim of the complainant is,

“Estimated cost of SFS/III, area 156 sq.m. in Sidharth Enclave adjacent area with servant quarter/motor garage in 1978	Rs. 1,51,000
“Estimated cost of SFS/III, area 156 sq.m. in Sidharth Enclave adjacent area with servant quarter/motor garage in Nov. 1981 area 141.84 sq.m.	Rs. 1,88,000
“Estimated cost of SFS/III, area 156 sq.m. in Sidharth Enclave adjacent area with servant quarter/motor garage in 1978 cost of the flat 34/B-area shown 126 sq.m./cost as 2,05,700 on the above basis (in March’ 82) should be Rs. 1,60,000. The amount charged more, which is refundable.	Rs. 45,700

It is stated by the complainant that the price of the flat should have been Rs. 1,60,000/- whereas he was required by the DDA to pay Rs. 2,05,700/-. Thus he paid Rs. 45,700/- extra, which he is entitled to recover from the DDA. There is no evidence produced by the complainant in support of his allegation that the price of the flat allotted in Sidharth Enclave between August’ 82 and the date of allotment of the flat in dispute was Rs. 1,60,000/-. Consequently, we reject the claim of the complainant

Item No. 3 : The claim of the complainant is,

“No details of Rs. 45/-, 210/- 696.25/- and 100/- total

Rs. 1051/-refundable

Rs. 1,051/-”

The complainant has claimed refund of Rs. 45/-, Rs. 210/-, Rs. 696.25p & Rs. 100/- on the ground that the purpose of charging the aforesaid amount has not been given by the DDA. The DDA in its allotment letter dated 7th March, 1986 has given the purpose of the said amounts as follows : -

Rs. 45/-as documental charges,

Rs. 210/-as service charges for one year,

 Rs. 696.25 p. as interest payable by the complainant in view of delayed payment of instalments and,

Rs. 100/- as share money for membership of the registering agency.

In the circumstances the claimant is not entitled to the refund of the said amount.

Item No. 4 : The claim of the complainant is,

“Cost of items not supplied/or replacement needed by way of defect, or deficiency as pointed out in Annex : III, IV, VI :

(i) Estimatrd Cost/Fixing of 3 bottle traps	Rs.450
(ii) Estimatrd Cost/Fixing basin tap in terrace	Rs. 500
(iii) Estimatrd Cost painting of steel windows/doors	Rs. 200
(iv) Estimatrd Cost tiles bathroom/kitchen	Rs. 1,500
(v) Estimatrd Cost/Fixing power points 5	Rs. 300
(vi) Estimatrd Cost/Fixing copper rewiring	Rs. 1,000
(vii) Estimatrd Cost/Fixing reflooring 2 bathrooms bed level	Rs. 2,500
Total	Rs. 6,450
Total refundable I, II, III & IV	Rs.2,78,619
Less interest allowed (II)	Rs. 14,385
	Rs. 2,64,234

The claimant has claimed Rs. 6,450/- on account of repairs/replacements for rectifying the defects in the flat. The complainant before taking possession of the flat pointed out the defects to the D.D. A. vide letter dated 23rd April, 1987 and requested them to rectify the same. Thereafter, he took possession of the flat on 11th May, 1987. Before taking possession, he prepared a report dated 11th May, 1987 and handed over the same to the officer concerned. In that report he stated that there were no defects in the walls, floors, roofs, doors, windows, ventilators, finishing of the building, water supply, sanitation etc. In case there had been some defects in the flat, the complainant would not have withdrawn the letter dated 23.4.87 and taken the possession of the flat. That goes a long way to show that the claim of the complainant was not correct. It is submitted by the complainant that he was coerced to withdraw the objections. The complainant did not produce any evidence of coercion in the case. He is an intelligent and vigilant person. If the officers of the D.D.A. had coereced him, he would have produced some evidence in that regard. So we reject the said claim.

Item No. 5 : The claim of the complainant is,

Compensation as requested for inordinate delay in making “an habitable flat” available, after 107 months, for which thecomplainant paid rent/taxes Rs. 2,14,000/- suffered loss of interest on payments to D.D.A., expenditure on transportation, and mental worry/harrassment for the long period. 5(b)
	Rs. 3,16,000/-
D.D.A. annual budget used to be 600 crores, and battery of highly paid staff. No justification for this long delay. Damages payable.	Rs. 20,000/-

6. The complainant has been paid the interest on the amouunt deposited by him by the D.D.A. at the agreed rate. In the circumstances, he is not entitled to any other damages on account of late delivery of possession of the flat.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss the same. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

Petition dismissed.