Delhi

StateCommission

A/411/2016

SMT. SHAKUNTLA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MAHESH ISSAR

23 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                Date of Arguments: 23.09.16

Date of Decision:    30.09.16

 

First Appeal No, 411/2016

 

In the matter of:

            Smt. Shakuntala Singh

            w/o  Sh. Balwant Singh

            R/o H-6756, Block No.10

            Gali No.3, Karol Bagh,

            New Delhi                                                                                         ....Appellant

 

           

                                      Versus

 

         

1. Delhi Development Authority

             Through its chairman

             Vikas Sadan, INA Colony

             New Delhi.

 

2. Deputy Director(CE)

             Delhi Development Authority

             Commercial Estate Branch

             Vikas Sadan, INA Colony

             New Delhi                                                          ....Respondents              

         

CORAM

 

                                                                                               

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

 

•  

 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

JUDGEMENT

              The complainant has challenged order dated 08.07.16 passed by district forum II in complaint case no.1140/15 dismissing the complaint mainly on the ground that complainant booked commercial flat which is not covered under consumer protection act.

2.     Facts are not in dispute.  Complainant applied for allotment of commercial flat under category II under SFS (commercial flats) 1985 by paying Rs. 20,000/- on 05.09.85. She received letter dated 17.02.2000 stating that complainant had not submitted her option for place.  She replied that she opted in category I flat. She was allotted flat 105 measuring  56.65 sq mt in district centre Janakpuri, New Delhi in draw lot held on 07.07.2000.  The OP demanded premium of Rs, 16,03,195/-.  The complainant preferred CWP No. 7147/2000 before High Court of Delhi and deposited Rs. 2,62,006/-as per orders of Hon’ble High Court on 15.12.2000.  The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.01.04. LPA No. 805/04 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take other remedy available under law.  Thereafter the complainant filed a

 

complaint before district forum for directing OP to hand over possession of commercial flat No. 2F/105 in district centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi on original cost, to quash the exorbitant and prohibited demand of Rs. 16,03,195/- raised by OP, pay compensation of Rs, 10,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony, Rs. 25,000/- for cost of proceedings

3.     The OP filed a reply stating that complainant was not a consumer as flat in question was to be used for commercial purpose. Due to non-payment the allotment was cancelled on 18.01.2006.

4.     In rejoinder the complainant did not deny the factum of commercial flat and did not indicate that the said flat was being purchased for her source of livelihood.

5.     Both the parties filed evidence by affidavit and written arguments. After going through the material on record, district forum passed order in question.  It observed that questions involved are complicated questions of law and facts which cannot be decided without recording evidence of the party, in

summary procedure under consumer protection Act. Fixation of price of commercial flat is beyond the jurisdiction of forum.

6.     I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  The appellant has not filed copy of the order of Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition or in LPA. Without that it cannot be appreciated as to what was the ground of dismissal. 

7.     In the complaint filed by appellant, she nowhere mentioned that she booked the commercial flat for earning her livelihood by self employment.  She did not do so even in rejoinder.  Law has gone to the extent that mentioning so in rejoinder is not sufficient. In this regard reference with advantage can be made to decision of National Commission in Pradeep Singh Tayal vs. TDI I(2016) CPJ 219.

8.     It was for the first time in arguments that appellant stated that she was handicapped lady, she initiate to let out the premises on rent for earning income for her livelihood.  I fail to understand how this can be treated as self employment.  Earning from rent does not involve self employment.

 

9.     The allotment of appellant has already been cancelled in 2006.  Now allotment at original price is beyond comprehension. Price fixation cannot be done by consumer foras.

10.   I do not find any infirmity in the order of district forum

11.   Appeal is dismissed in limini.

Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

Copy of order be sent to district forum for information.

 

                                                                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

                                                                                                MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

​