As seen from the record, complainant Iqbal Kaur had applied to the OP/Delhi Development Authority for allotment of a shop, to earn her livelihood. A shop was allotted on 29.2.1996 in Commercial-cum-Staff Housing Complex in Land Acquisition Category (LAC). The entire price of Rs 4,86,205/- was paid by 15.6.1996. An application was moved on 27.6.1996 requesting for possession of the shop, as full consideration had already been paid. Allegedly, after a series of letters and multiple visits to the DDA, involving prolonged harassment, the possession was eventually received on 12.9.2003 i.e. after lapse of over seven years. 2. Ten months before the delivery of possession, a consumer complaint had been filed before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in November 2002, seeking possession with refund of excess amount paid and compensation of Rs.11 lakhs. The State Commission allowed the complaint and awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-, observing that— “We have taken a view that whenever a consumer makes payment of entire consideration the first and foremost duty of the service provider is to handover possession and later on get the formalities required to be completed. In this case the delay was of about 7 years.” 3. Both sides have appealed against the above order. The complainant has filed the appeal (FA/298/2008) to seek enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, DDA has filed its appeal (FA/392/2008) to set aside the impugned order which has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-, on the ground that there was no deficiency of service on its part. 4. The record submitted on behalf of the two sides have been perused. Delay of 24 days in filing of appeal by the DDA, has been condoned. Counsel for the DDA, Ms Girija Wadhwa, Advocate and Mr Lajinder Singh, Authorised Representative of the complainant have been heard. Significantly, during the course of hearing of these appeals, learned counsel for the DDA informed that half of the awarded amount has already been paid to the complainant and DDA is willing to pay the remaining half, in full compliance of the impugned order. Learned counsel argued that the complainant has been compensated, more than adequately in the impugned order. Hence, there is no case for the amount being enhanced in appeal. Per contra, it was clarified by the AR of the complainant that the latter is not agreeable to withdrawing his claim for enhancement of compensation, even if the DDA voluntarily makes full compliance with the award of the State Commission. 5. As seen from the Memorandum of appeal, the main ground for seeking enhancement of the compensation is that the State Commission should have compensated the complainant for the actual loss suffered, instead of awarding a lump sum amount. It is contended that the State Commission has itself held that there was unjustifiable delay of over seven years, despite full payment in 1996 itself. It has held that non adjustment of earnest money of Rs.5000/- was an act of highhandedness. Similarly, it held that the demand letter of 29.2.1996 was wrong and yet did not order refund of additional interest on the concerned amount. This has an obvious reference to the following observations in the impugned order— “13. After having accorded careful consideration to the aforesaid conspectus of facts we find that the conduct of the OP was deficient, malafide and arbitrary. The OP labeled the allotment letter as provisional illegally when all the terms and conditions and eligibility criteria was fulfilled at the time of applying for the shop. Adjustment of Rs.5,000/- as earnest money in the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 29-02-1996 was a high handedness of the OP and was against all the rules and regulations of the DDA. The complainant was to make the payment by 02-05-1996 and without any interest. She deposited Rs.2.56 lakhs by 02-05-1996. For the remaining amount she sought extension from OP and paid Rs.2.60 lakhs with interest for one month on it by 21-05-1996 but still OP charged interest on the whole amount from 22-03-1996 as is evident by the OP’s letter dated 08-08-1997. The allotment-cum-demand letter dated 29-02-1996 was wrong as it didn’t adjust Rs.5,000/- deposited as earnest money. The demand of Rs.8,574/- was wrong and illegal and raised with malafide intentions. The demand for Rs.8,574/- should not have been raised at all in view of delayed issue of letter of demand and adjustment of the earnest money of Rs.5,000/- due to complainant by the OP. The fact remains that OP was to refund Rs.8,574/- and adjust Rs.5,000/- paid as earnest money with interest from the date of these deposits. This was intentionally not done by the OP to delay the possession. OP has not maintained anywhere as to which documents were not submitted, whereas the complainant had submitted all the documents time and again between 1996 to 2002 to the OP including unwarranted demands as stated in the letters mentioned in para 8 of the complaint. It is wrong that the complainant submitted the complete set of documents only on 07-05-2002 as alleged. There is no policy of the DDA that before the issue of the possession letter, conveyance deed (CD) papers should be stamped from the Registrar as alleged. The complainant was issued CD, perpetual lease and site plan on 11-10-2002 for the first time along with a covering letter all wrongly filed with name of the complainant as also the location of the shop in the market and its dimensions and these were returned on 18-10-2002 for corrections. It is wrong that the possession letter could not be issued to the complainant because the complainant failed to give the complete set of documents to the OP. 14. The complainant has suffered loss due to delayed delivery of possession as she had to pay 5% extra stamp duty as the same was increased from 8% to 13% whereas the OP has unjustly gained by retaining the entire consideration amount for such a long time and delayed the possession on one pretext or the other.” 6. Considering the above, we are of the view that in the interest of justice and equity there is need to enhance the quantum of compensation. We therefore, enhance the amount of lump sum compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs. 80,000/-, which shall be paid to the complainant within two months. Delay, if any, shall carry interest at 9%. The appeal of the complainant is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. For the same reason, the appeal of the Delhi Development Authority stands dismissed. |
