DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Radhey Mohan

-AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission dated 17. 8. 2007 in Appeal No. 636 of 2004 particularly allowing the appeal of the complainant Shri Radhey Mohan directing that the respondent-Delhi Development Authority be entitled to charge interest @ 10% on the amount of Rs. 85,553 for the period from 21. 9. 2000 till the date of the order and no other payment and further that if the excessive payment already made, excessive amount shall be refunded within one month from the date of the order DDA has filed this revision petition.

FACTUAL matrix of the case in brief is that the complainant was allotted a plot on hire purchase basis as per demand-cum-allotment letter dated 1. 10. 1999. The disposal cost of the plot was Rs. 7,51,000. Though he was asked to pay Rs. 3,53,161. 97 before 5. 10. 1999, he could not make the payment on time and hence he paid Rs. 3,61,991 on 30. 12. 1999. As he could not make payment of the monthly instalments commencing from 10. 12. 1999 he paid in lump sum Rs. 54,276. 64 i. e. , towards eight instalments on 17. 6. 2000. On 20. 9. 2000 he further paid a lump sum of Rs. 2,50,000 and requested the DDA to indicate the balance amount payable by him on 15. 12. 2000. But he did not receive any reply from the DDA about his request. It is the say of the complainant who is the respondent before us is that there was no balance payable after the payment of Rs. 2,50,000 but the DDA continued to charge interest of the instalments which were payable. Unhappy with the stand taken by the DDA he had filed a complaint before the District Forum for quashing of the interest charged as well as the rate of interest of 10%.

As the District Forum dismissed the complaint he filed an appeal before the State Commission.

THE State Commission observed that under the Penalty Relief Scheme of 2001 which the complainant had availed for making the cash down payment and subsequently after his request for making the payment by way of monthly instalments was allowed. DDA was obliged to inform the complainant about the balance amount payable by him under the scheme. Hence, this revision. Though the State Commission order dated 17. 8. 2007 was received by DDA on 20. 9. 2007 as is evident from the seal of the DDA, the DDA chose to file this revision petition only on 12. 7. 2008. The DDA inter alia has given following reasons: "that the petitioner got the certified copy of the order from the Commission on 20. 9. 2007 but the same could not reach the Housing Department. The same got misplaced. The petitioner requested the Panel Lawyer to obtain the certified copy of the order. The Counsel for the petitioner arranged for the same and the copy was sent to the department on 3. 12. 2007. "

THERE has been a delay of nearly six months in filing this revision petition for which reasons given are not convincing. One of the grounds urged by the learned Counsel for the DDA is that while making payment the complainant had not applied in the prescribed application form which was a proper format for availing the benefit under the Penalty Relief Scheme of 2001. Though she submitted that there was a short payment of Rs. 31,000 she did not place before us an authenticated calculation sheet to substantiate her contention. In normal circumstances, the allottees are bound by the terms and conditions of the demand-cum-allotment letter. But the scenario changed vastly when a special scheme like Penalty Relief Scheme, 2001 was announced for the benefit of the allottees. The DDA should have calculated the balance payable if any, soon after the announcement of the scheme and communicated it to the complainant. No record has been shown to us in this regard. The pamphlet printed and circulated by the DDA does not state that the allottees of hire purchase option desire to opt for cash down option they should submit an application form in a prescribed format for availing the benefits. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this revision petition. There is no jurisdictional error, material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.