JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainants/respondents got themselves registered with the petitioner Delhi Development Authority, in its second Self Financing Scheme (Commercial Flats) 1985 for allotment of commercial flats by paying registration amount of Rs.20,000/- by each of them.  No allotment under the said scheme was made to them.  Vide letter dated 31.12.1992, the petitioner informed the complainants that no specific buildings/projects/scheme under the 1985 second SFS Scheme had yet been taken by them but DDA was in a position to provide some flats in Janakpuri District Centre and Laxmi Nagar, which were being constructed independently of the Scheme under which the complainants were registered.  The said flats were likely to be available for possession from August 1993 onwards.  The estimated price per square meter was stated to be Rs.16,488/- for plot no.5 and Rs.18,145/- for plot no.1 & 2 in Janakpuri District Centre and Rs.14,839/- in Laxmi Nagar District Centre.  It was clearly stated in the letter that the prices were tentative and the actual prices might vary from the tentative prices.  However, no specific commercial flat was offered to the complainants.  Demand letters were issued to them on 28.03.2000, wherein they were asked to pay premium specified in the said letter.  The number of unit allotted to them as well as the size of the unit was stated in the demand letters.  They were given credit of the registration money of Rs.20,000/- which they had already deposited under the 1985 Scheme alongwith interest on that amount for the intervening period.  They were asked to deposit the balance amount within thirty days of the issuance of the letter.  However, no payment in terms of the above referred demand letter was made by the complainants who approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the demand letters.  The Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 16.01.2004.  The complainants did not make payment in terms of the demand letter even after dismissal of the Writ Petition and rather approached the concerned District Forum by way of Consumer Complaints seeking possession of the allotted commercial flats and quashing of the demand raised by the petitioner.  They also sought compensation from the petitioner authority.  The Consumer Complaints were instituted on 30.12.2005, about one year and eleven months after the Writ Petition was dismissed. 

2.      The complaints were resisted by the petitioner which took a preliminary objection that the complainants were not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act since the flats in question were to be used only for commercial purpose.  On merits, it was inter-alia stated in the written version filed by the petitioner that on completion of the building, draw was held on 29.02.2000 and the complainants having been found successful, allotment was made to them and they were asked to make payment in terms of the demand letter issued to them.  It was further stated that the complainants did not make payment in terms of the demand letter and therefore, the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 08.10.2004. 

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 17.02.2010, directed the petitioner to allot commercial flats to the complainants at the same price as was mentioned in the demand letter.  It was further directed that in case the said flat is not available, the petitioner shall allot commercial flat of the same size in the same locality in the same price. 

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner authority approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals.  The said appeals having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission. 

5.      Coming to the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner in the written version filed before the District Forum, I find that though the units in question were commercial units and therefore, meant for being used for commercial purpose, the complainants did not even allege in the Consumer Complaints that they had booked the said unit for the purpose of earning their livelihood by way of self-employment.  Despite a primary objection taken in this regard by the petitioner in its written version, the complainants did not allege even in their rejoinder that they had booked the units in question for the purpose of earning their livelihood by way of self-employment.  Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the complainants were consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, which excludes, from its ambit, the goods purchased or the services hired or availed for a commercial purpose.  The Consumer Complaints therefore, were liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 

6.      Coming to the merits, the submission of the learned counsel for the complainants is that despite registration in the year 1985, no commercial unit was offered to the complainants till they received letters offering commercial units to them in Laxmi Nagar and/or Janakpuri District Centre.  There is no evidence of the petitioner having promised allotment of the commercial units under the 1985 Scheme in a particular time period.  Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services by not offering any commercial unit to the complainants before December 1991 when alternative units in Janakpuri District Centre/Laxmi Nagar were offered to them. 

7.      It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that though the commercial units in Janakpuri District Centre/Laxmi Nagar were to be delivered by August 1993, even those units were not offered till the year 2000 when the demand letters came to be issued.  Admittedly, no payment was taken by the petitioner authority from the complainants while obtaining their consent for allotment of alternative commercial units in Janakpuri District Centre/Laxmi Nagar.  The only amount which they had paid was registration money of Rs.20,000/- for which interest had been duly credited while making allotment to them in December 2000.  Had the complainant made even part payment to the authority pursuant to the offer made in December 2000, they would have been justified in seeking compensation by way of interest on that amount for the delay in offering possession of the alternative units in Janakpuri District Centre/Laxmi Nagar.  No payment having been made by them, they are not entitled to any compensation on account of the said delay.  More importantly, it was clearly stated in the letters sent to the complainants in December 2000 that the price mentioned therein was only tentative.  Obviously, the price prevailing in the year 2000 could not have been the same price which were prevailing in the year 1991. 

8.      The complainants, if they wanted to take possession of the commercial units allotted to them in Janakpuri District Centre/Laxmi Nagar, ought to have made payment pursuant to the demand letters issued to them in December 2000.  They did not make payment in terms of the said demand letters which required them to make the payment within thirty days of its issuance.  More importantly, they did not make payment even after the Writ Petition filed by them was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.  It has to be noticed in this regard that the allotment to the complainants was cancelled in May 2004 after the Writ Petition had already been dismissed in January 2004.  Thus, even after dismissal of the Writ Petition, the complainants had about four months available to them for making payment in terms of the demand letter issued to them in December 2000, before the allotments came to be cancelled. 

9.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the complainants having defaulted in payment of the amount demanded from them vide demand letters issued in December 2000, the petitioner was justified in cancelling the allotments made to them.  The impugned orders therefore, cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside.  The complaints are consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. 

          However, the registration money which the complainants had deposited with the petitioner, shall be refunded to them within six weeks alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.  The necessary formalities required for the purpose of making refund shall be completed by the complainants within two weeks from today.