DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs G C Arora

THIS order shall decide the Review Petition filed in respect of the order dated 06.01.2014. It appears that the counsel for the petitioner, who appeared on 06.01.2014 could not explain the facts properly. The facts of this care are these. Sh. G.C. Arora, the complainant was allotted a flat in Vasant Kunj Category II, 2nd Floor, New Delhi at an estimated cost in the sum of Rs.3,80,000/ - in the year 1990. The complainant paid only one instalment. The final demand -cum -allotment letter was sent and he was allotted flat No. 9421 category II 2nd Floor in C -9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The cost of the flat was mentioned as Rs.6,13,700/ - on 18.11.1993. The respondent took the physical possession on 08.03.1995.

THE complainant filed the complaint with a prayer that the DDA -OP is liable to pay an interest in the sum of Rs.1,73,245/ - for the late possession of the flat. The delay was to the extent of 23 months. He further prayed that conveyance charges amounting to Rs.10,000/ - compensation in the sum of Rs.25,000/ - and the legal charges in the sum of Rs.5,000/ - be paid.

THE District Forum directed to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.1685.83 rounded off to Rs.16,886/ - on account of actual period interest and share money, charged from the complainant twice. The District Forum further directed to refund to the complainant the contingency charges in the sum of Rs.2,046/ - and the balance belated construction interest in the sum of Rs.25,700/ -. The order passed by the District Forum was challenged in appeal. Learned State Commission decided the appeal without notice to the Opposite Party vide its order stating that the matter being simple, could be decided without summoning the respondent , in view of the pleadings of the parties as well as the view taken by the State Commission earlier in the similar matter on 02.08.2006. The said order of the State Commission was called into question before the National Commission. The National Commission disposed of the appeals by remanding it before the State Commission with the direction to dispose of the appeals preferably within a period of 4 months. The State Commission decided the case on 26.04.2013 and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum dated 05.06.2006. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the following prayers: - "(15) Therefore, the complainant prays that following amount by way of refund of escalation amount, excess payment, interest, harassment and expenses may be ordered to be paid to the complainant by the respondents: -

(a) Refund of escalated amount, Rs.2,32,700/ -

(b) Refund of excess amount charged on account Late payment of 1 st instalment and share money for Membership and interest @18% p.a. on the above Amount (upto 31.12.95), Rs. 3,668.15 Rs. 1,293/ -

(c) Refund of contingencies charges and Interest @18% p.a. on the above amount(upto 31.12.95) Rs. 2,046/ - Rs. 721/ -

(d) Interest on service charges of Rs.4370/ - made In advance @18% p.a., for the period 15.01.94 to 02.03.95, Rs. 885/ -

(e ) Interest on IVth, instalment (deferred) of Rs.76120/ - made in advance @ 18% p.a., for Six months. Rs. 6,851/ -

(f) Interest @ 18% p.a. on the amounts deposited delayed period of construction: (on Rs.3,44,226/ - for 9.5 months -fm.4.4.93 to 13.1.94 and on Rs.6,13,300/ - for 13.5 months - fm.14.1.94 to 2.3.95)

Rs.1,73,245/ - ( Rs. 49052+ Rs.124193)

(g) Expenses on conveyance and mandays lost in visiting DDA office for seeking redressal of grievances as aforesaid Rs. 10,000/ -

(h) Compensation for Suffering, Harassment, Mental agony and Torture, Rs. 25,000/ -

(i) Expenses of Litigation Rs. 5,000/ -

(j) Any other relief that this honorable court May 26, 2015 deem fit and proper may be allowed in the circumstances of the case. TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT: Rs. 04,61,409/ - (Rupees Four Lac Sixty Thousand Four Hundred Nine Only) ''''.

THE petitioner has filed the review petition and has contended that the petitioner has sold the flat to a third party but it has not bolstered its case with evidence.

BOTH the Fora rightly mentioned that the estimated and provision cost "only" was mentioned in the year 1990 in the sum of Rs.3,80,600/ -. The final cost was mentioned as Rs.6,30,300/ - on 18.11.1993. Both the Fora have rightly held that the OP was entitled to have cost in the sum of Rs.6,30,300/ -.

BOTH the Fora have come to the correct conclusion that the complainant was entitled to Rs.25,700/ - for belated construction. The District Forum mentioned: - "Belated construction interest: - According to the complainant the construction of the flat in question was expected to be completed within 2.5 years from the date of the commencement of the construction i.e. 4.10.1995. However, the complainant was issued the possession letter only on 2.3.1995. That is to say the OP took 53 months for the construction of the flat instead of 30 months and thereby a delay of 33 months reflected. The complainant has claimed interest for this period on the payment of Rs.3,44,226/ - @18% instead of 7% contemplated in the Terms and Conditions of the allotment. According to the OP BCI has been allowed to the complainant correctly. The OP has not given any calculation of the interest allowed to the complainant. As per the Terms and Conditions of the allotment, the complainant is entitled to interest @ 7% for the period beyond 2.5 years. This period of 2.5 years starts from 4.10.1990 and ends on 4.4.1993. The possession letter was issued to the complainant on 2.3.1995. Therefore the complainant is entitled to belated construction interest for the period 4.4.1993 to 2.3.1995 i.e. for the period of 23 months. This interest calculated @7% p.a. on the payment of Rs.3,44,226/ - comes to approximately Rs.44,000/ -, whereas the OP has allowed only Rs.18,268/ - on this account. That is to say, the complainant has been paid less Rs.25,732/ - which is rounded off to Rs.25,700/ -".

The orders passed by the Fora below in this context cannot be faulted. No argument was urged by the counsel for the respondent in this context.

FOR refund of excess amount and contingency amount, the State Commission held: - "9. Next items are with regard to the refund of the excess amount charged on account of late payment on first installment and refund of contingency charges. Admittedly, the OP has charged Rs.3,668.15 and Rs.1293/ - for payment of the first installment and Rs.2046/ - and Rs.721/ - in respect of the contingency charges. So far as the amount of Rs.3,668.15 is concerned, it is cleared by the OP in its affidavit that the first installment as per the demand -cum -allotment letter was payable by 30.12.90 but the same was paid by the complainant on 27.2.91, hence the interest has been charged from him. It has been further stated that an amount of Rs.1585.83 is also included in this amount and Rs.100/ - on account of share money. It is true that the payment of the first installment made by the complainant was late by two months, therefore, the OP was entitled to charge interest on the same as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, however grace period interest of Rs.1585/ - and the share money of Rs.100/ - was also paid by the complainant along with his first installment. It is clear that the OP has charged double payment of Rs.1685.83, for which he is entitled for the refund, to which we agree with the finding of the District Forum. Similar is the case with regard to refund the contingency charges, which was allowed by the District Forum to the tune of Rs.2046/ -".

THE Review Petition is without merit and therefore the same is dismissed.