SUBHASH CHANDER SABHARWAL vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

FEELING aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.6.1997 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 3181/1994, whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 2,45,000/- against the respondent DDA as well as the then DESU on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice was dismissed, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

FACTS giving rise to this appeal in brief are that the appellant purchased shop No. 24, DDA Market, Sector-C, Block-C, C.S.C. Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi in an auction sale for Rs. 1,77,205/-. Possession of the shop was taken over on 23.4.1994. After taking the possession it was found that the area where the shop was situated had not been electrified, though temporary electricity connection was available. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent has indulged in unfair trade practice by selling the shop in question without getting the area electrified. Admittedly electrification of the area was done in the year 1995. The respondent DDA claimed to have deposited the development charges with the respondent DESU for laying cables for the purpose of electrification of the area in March, 1992. So much so the additional amount claimed by the DESU was also adjusted against another scheme in 1995. The respondent DESU absolved its liability by taking the plea that the appellant had never applied for temporary electricity connection though had admitted that till 1995 the area was not electrified and permanent connections were not available.

It appears that both the respondents DDA as well as DESU are shifting blame towards each other inasmuch as that the DDA thinks that its liability to provide electricity to the shop in question was over once it had deposited the development charges for laying cables for the purpose of electrification of the area with DESU while on the other hand the DESU had taken the plea that though the area was not electrified by 1995 still the temporary connection was available and had the appellant applied for temporary connection the same would have been provided.

THE dispute between the DDA and DESU is as to why DESU took three long years for electrification of the area. It is a dispute between the two Government authorities and the appellant is not concerned with it. Whenever DDA intends to sell any premises constructed by it may be shop or residential flat its statutory obligation is to first provide basic facilities like water and electricity. DDA is not expected to auction or sell any premises having no water and electricity. The Counsel for the respondent has raised the contention that the shop in question was sold on "as is where is basis" and the appellant did not hire any kind of service from the respondent DDA. We do not find any substance in this contention as the meaning of sale of property on "as is where is basis" is in respect of its condition and not that DDA can sell any shop or residential flat without ensuring that these have no facilities of water and electricity. Sale of such premises not only amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent DDA but also amounts to deficiency in service in not providing the premises in completely useable condition. No premises can be used without facility of water and electricity effectively.

SINCE the appellant has been all along in possession of the shop in question and has been using the same for commercial purpose but was given the electricity connection in 1995, the respondent DDA cannot escape from its liability of compensating the appellant on account of deficiency in service as well as for unfair trade practice. We deem that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation on account of harassment and mental agony the appellant suffered by using the shop without electricity connection would meet the ends of justice. The amount for loss of business claimed by the appellant is not permissible on account of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Consumer can only be compensated for harassment and mental agony suffered by him on these counts. The respondent DESU is also guilty in not providing the service of electrification within reasonable period as the respondent DDA deposited the development charges for laying the cables in March, 1992 and also additional amount was also deposited by the DDA which was got adjusted in another scheme in 1995 but connection was provided in 1995. On the part of the DESU it also amounts to deficiency in service vis-a-vis both the respondents. The aforesaid amount shall be equally shared by DDA as well as DESU and payable within one month. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. The records received from the District Forum may also be returned to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. The FDR if any deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant after completing necessary formalities. Appeal disposed of.