BANSILAL B SHAH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross-revision petitions, R.P. Nos.2975/2007 & 3940/2007 have been filed by Bansilal B. Shah(hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') and Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent/Authority') respectively, being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No.378/2007 which upheld the order of the District Forum by confirming compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs in favour of Petitioner herein.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Petitioner had been allotted a MIG Flat on hire purchase basis by the Respondent/Authority for a total consideration of Rs.4,74,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the Hire-Purchase, confirmation money of Rs.20,000/- was payable on 09.06.1994 and payment of Rs.2,13,579.09p was to be made in installments after adjusting the sum of Rs.11,907.41p on account of registration money and interest thereon. Respondent/Authority sent a demand letter to the Petitioner at his Hari Nagar address in Delhi though the Petitioner had informed the Respondent/Authority about the change of his address to Mumbai in 1991. Subsequently, the demand letter was sent to the Mumbai address and Petitioner sent the requisite amount which was received by the Respondent reportedly after a delay of 4 days from the due date and Respondent, therefore, cancelled the allotment. Later, on a representation made by the Petitioner, competent authority restored the flat on payment of Rs.2,850/- as restoration charges. Petitioner protested against its imposition and did not make this payment. The possession letter was therefore not given to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by this, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondent/Authority be directed to hand over the possession of the flat to the Petitioner and pay Rs.9 lakhs towards damages/financial loss/occupancy loss and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs.

(3.) The above contentions were denied by the Respondent who stated that the allotment had been cancelled as per rules and was subsequently restored subject to payment of restoration charges. However, Petitioner had still not paid the restoration charges of Rs.2,850/- and therefore, the possession letter was not issued to him.