Case nº Revision Petition No. 880 of 2009 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, February 15, 2016 (case Delhi Development Authority Vs H.C. Makkar)

Judge:For the Appellant: Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate and For the Respondent: Mr. H.S. Hans, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Advocate
President:Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member
Defense:Consumer Law
Resolution Date:February 15, 2016
Issuing Organization:National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


M. Shreesha, Presiding Member

  1. This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"), is directed against the order dated 19.09.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 12 and 482 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has confirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Delhi (in short "the District Forum") and dismissed both the Appeals preferred by the Respondent/Complainant and the Revision Petitioner herein, i.e. the Delhi Development Authority.

  2. The brief facts as stated in the Complaint are that the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Petitioner/Authority and registered himself under the Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme launched in the year 1982. The Complainant was allotted a flat in Jasola area but he did not accept the offer and deposited a further sum of Rs.1600/-, requesting the Authority to keep his registration alive as per their rules. Thereafter, the Authority allotted a flat in the third floor in Kondli Gharoli area but the Complainant did not accept the offer, stating that he is a senior citizen and may not be able to occupy a flat in the third floor and further that the housing complex Kondli Gharoli was lacking in basic amenities, particularly water supply.

  3. The Complainant approached the Lok Adalat of the Authority and also the Hon''ble Lt. Governor of Delhi to intervene in the matter but there was no positive result out of the proceedings.

  4. Contending that allotting a flat in an area where basic amenities were not available, amounted to deficiency in service, the Complainant preferred a Complaint before the District Forum, praying for a direction to the Authority to allot a flat as per his application in an area where all basic amenities were available, besides costs and compensation.

  5. The Authority filed their reply contending that a flat was allotted to the Complainant at the second floor in Pocket G, Kondli Gharoli on 25.02.1994 and a demand letter was also issued to him but since the Complainant did not deposit the amount as per the allotment-cum-demand letter, the allotment stood cancelled. Subsequently, the Opposite Party restored the right of allotment on the intervention of the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 14.07.1999. Even then the Complainant did not deposit the amount. The allotment was cancelled in view of non-deposit of the amount. The Opposite Party denied that there was any deficiency in the provision of the basic amenities and sought for dismissal of the Complaint.

  6. The District Forum observed that non-acceptance of the flat twice by the Complainant was not justified and that the rules of the Opposite Party allowed for the practice of keeping the registration alive if the applicant deposited certain amount and that the Complainant had availed this right in...

To continue reading