Chaman Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1113966
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided OnMar-25-1997
Case NumberCase No. A-461 of 1996
JudgeA.P. CHOWDHRI, PRESIDENT & DESH BANDHU, MEMBER
AppellantChaman Singh
RespondentDelhi Development Authority
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - comparative citation: 1997 (2) cpj 290a.p. chowdhri, president: 1. brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on the basis of draw of lots dated 10.10.1987, the appellant was allotted mig flat no. 512, pocket 8, sector 8, rohini at a disposal cost of rs. 1,27,500/-by letter dated 23.11.1987/27.11.1987. the flat was on third floor and the allotment was made on cash-down basis. the complainant made a representation to the l.g. that he was a patient of cancer. he requested for allotment of a flat on ground floor and on hire-purchase basis. the representation was forwarded to the dda for sympathetic consideration. nothing was heard in this connection. the complainant, having failed to accept the allotment of the flat on the third floor on cash-down basis and having failed to deposit the amount, the allotment was cancelled and the complainant was asked to deposit restoration charges amounting to rs. 7,500/-, in case, he wanted to keep the registration alive. the complainant deposited the same and applied for a change of the allotment from third floor to ground floor by depositing charges on account of change amounting to rs.7,500/-. the complainant also pointed out in his letter dated 12.12.89 that flat no. 121, pocket a-l, sector 7, rohini, constructed in 1985, had been lying un-allotted and the same be allotted to him. on 16.1.90 the said flat was allotted to the complainant for rs. 2,00,800/-. possession thereof was delivered to the complainant on 1.4.91. the present complaint was filed on 13.11.94 for compensation for the delay in allotment and also for revising the price from rs. 1,27,500/-to rs. 2,00,800/-. in fact, the price charged for the flat which was constructed in 1985, from other persons was rs. 94,800/-. according to the complainant, there was no reason why he should be charged more than that price. 2. on a consideration of the material before it. district forum-i held that there was no deficiency in service. that the question of pricing was beyond the purview of the consumer protection act, and that the complaint was barred by limitation of two years prescribed u/section 24a of the c.p. act and accordingly dismissed the complaint. aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 3. we have heard mr. h.a. ansari, advocate for the appellant and mr. s.c. varshney, advocate for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records. 4. the contention of mr. ansari is that no plea regarding limitation had been raised on behalf of the opposite party before the district forum. in any case, he submitted that the case related to the period prior to the enactment of section 24a prescribing a limitation of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. prior to the said amendment w.e.f. 18.6.1996 the national commission allowed the normal period of three years limitation on the principle of residuary article of the limitation act for preferring a complaint. in the facts of the present case if the date of delivery of possession namely 1.4.91 were taken as the date of accrual of cause of action, the complaint was filed within 3 years and about three months and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said small period of delay deserved to be condoned. 5. the contention of mr. s.c. varshney, on the other hand, is that the law of limitation had to be applied whether the plea of this effect was taken or not. mr. varshney, therefore, submitted that the complaint was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation. after careful consideration, we find that the consumer protection act, contained no provision regarding limitation until the enactment of section 24a under the c.p. amendment act, w.e.f. 18.6.93. the complainant did not seek to raise a stale matter in the sense that cause of action had accrued only about three months before the expiry of the normal period of limitation and in all appropriate cases the fora had the power to condone the delay. in the facts and circumstances of this case, we think that the power of condonation should have been used. accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the complaint and proceed to deal with the matter on merits. 6. we find no merit in the contention that the appeal itself is also barred by limitation. the order of the district forum is dated 30.1.96. certified copy of the order was made available to the complainant on 4.3.96 and the present appeal was filed on 4.4.96. the appeal is, therefore, within limitation. 7. there is force in the contention of mr. varshney that price of the flat is fixed at the time of its allotment according to the formula laid down for the purpose and if a person, after taking possession, wishes to contest the price fixed he has to move the civil court. the question of pricing is outside the purview of the consumer protection act, as the law stands today. we, therefore, do not propose to examine the question whether the opposite party was justified in charging rs. 2,00,800/-for the flat in question. 8. assuming that the complainant had no right to allotment on the ground floor, the dda itself intimated to him on 16.1.90 that the particular flat pointed out by the complainant is being allotted to him. thereafter demand letter was issued on 13.12.90 and possession delivered on 1.4.91. these facts, however, bring out very clearly that flat no. 121, pocket a-l, sector 7, rohini which was ultimately allotted to the complainant, had been lying vacant and unallotted since its construction in 1985. we see no difficulty why the dda did not allot that flat when the complainant applied for change seeking a ground floor flat on 15.12.88 especially as the l.g. had directed the dda to consider the request of the complainant for allotment on the ground floor earlier. there was, thus, an avoidable delay of 13 months from 15.12.89 to 16.1.90. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the complainant is compensated by an award of rs. 5.000/-. we, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the respondent to pay rs. 5,000/-on account of compensation for the delay in the disposal of the appellant's application for change of the allotment from third floor to ground floor especially when the ground floor flat had been available all along. the said amount shall be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the appeal is allowed in these terms. both the parties be informed. a copy be also sent to district forum-i. appeal allowed.
Judgment:

A.P. Chowdhri, President:

1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on the basis of draw of lots dated 10.10.1987, the appellant was allotted MIG Flat No. 512, Pocket 8, Sector 8, Rohini at a disposal cost of Rs. 1,27,500/-by letter dated 23.11.1987/27.11.1987. The flat was on third floor and the allotment was made on cash-down basis. The complainant made a representation to the L.G. that he was a patient of cancer. He requested for allotment of a flat on ground floor and on hire-purchase basis. The representation was forwarded to the DDA for sympathetic consideration. Nothing was heard in this connection. The complainant, having failed to accept the allotment of the flat on the third floor on cash-down basis and having failed to deposit the amount, the allotment was cancelled and the complainant was asked to deposit restoration charges amounting to Rs. 7,500/-, in case, he wanted to keep the registration alive. The complainant deposited the same and applied for a change of the allotment from third floor to ground floor by depositing charges on account of change amounting to Rs.7,500/-. The complainant also pointed out in his letter dated 12.12.89 that flat No. 121, Pocket A-l, Sector 7, Rohini, constructed in 1985, had been lying un-allotted and the same be allotted to him. On 16.1.90 the said flat was allotted to the complainant for Rs. 2,00,800/-. Possession thereof was delivered to the complainant on 1.4.91. The present complaint was filed on 13.11.94 for compensation for the delay in allotment and also for revising the price from Rs. 1,27,500/-to Rs. 2,00,800/-. In fact, the price charged for the flat which was constructed in 1985, from other persons was Rs. 94,800/-. According to the complainant, there was no reason why he should be charged more than that price.

2. On a consideration of the material before it. District Forum-I held that there was no deficiency in service. That the question of pricing was beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, and that the complaint was barred by limitation of two years prescribed u/Section 24A of the C.P. Act and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. H.A. Ansari, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.C. Varshney, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records.

4. The contention of Mr. Ansari is that no plea regarding limitation had been raised on behalf of the opposite party before the District Forum. In any case, he submitted that the case related to the period prior to the enactment of Section 24A prescribing a limitation of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Prior to the said amendment w.e.f. 18.6.1996 the National Commission allowed the normal period of three years limitation on the principle of residuary article of the Limitation Act for preferring a complaint. In the facts of the present case if the date of delivery of possession namely 1.4.91 were taken as the date of accrual of cause of action, the complaint was filed within 3 years and about three months and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said small period of delay deserved to be condoned.

5. The contention of Mr. S.C. Varshney, on the other hand, is that the law of limitation had to be applied whether the plea of this effect was taken or not. Mr. Varshney, therefore, submitted that the complaint was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation. After careful consideration, we find that the Consumer Protection Act, contained no provision regarding limitation until the enactment of Section 24A under the C.P. Amendment Act, w.e.f. 18.6.93. The complainant did not seek to raise a stale matter in the sense that cause of action had accrued only about three months before the expiry of the normal period of limitation and in all appropriate cases the FORA had the power to condone the delay. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we think that the power of condonation should have been used. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the complaint and proceed to deal with the matter on merits.

6. We find no merit in the contention that the appeal itself is also barred by limitation. The order of the District Forum is dated 30.1.96. Certified copy of the order was made available to the complainant on 4.3.96 and the present appeal was filed on 4.4.96. The appeal is, therefore, within limitation.

7. There is force in the contention of Mr. Varshney that price of the flat is fixed at the time of its allotment according to the formula laid down for the purpose and if a person, after taking possession, wishes to contest the price fixed he has to move the Civil Court. The question of pricing is outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, as the law stands today. We, therefore, do not propose to examine the question whether the opposite party was justified in charging Rs. 2,00,800/-for the flat in question.

8. Assuming that the complainant had no right to allotment on the ground floor, the DDA itself intimated to him on 16.1.90 that the particular flat pointed out by the complainant is being allotted to him. Thereafter demand letter was issued on 13.12.90 and possession delivered on 1.4.91. These facts, however, bring out very clearly that flat No. 121, Pocket A-l, Sector 7, Rohini which was ultimately allotted to the complainant, had been lying vacant and unallotted since its construction in 1985. We see no difficulty why the DDA did not allot that flat when the complainant applied for change seeking a ground floor flat on 15.12.88 especially as the L.G. had directed the DDA to consider the request of the complainant for allotment on the ground floor earlier. There was, thus, an avoidable delay of 13 months from 15.12.89 to 16.1.90. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the complainant is compensated by an award of Rs. 5.000/-. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/-on account of compensation for the delay in the disposal of the appellant's application for change of the allotment from third floor to ground floor especially when the ground floor flat had been available all along. The said amount shall be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is allowed in these terms. Both the parties be informed. A copy be also sent to District Forum-I.

Appeal allowed.