The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has refused to entertain a petition of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed in a matter involving payment of interest to an allottee of a flat in Dwarka sub-city for the three years delay in giving possession, which was considered deficiency in service.
The DDA had challenged an order of the Delhi State Consumer Commission directing it to pay Rs.1.70 lakh by way of interest to Nasiruddin Fakhruddin Saiyed, a resident of Ahmedabad, who was given possession of flat in 2002, three years after he completed the schedule payment of Rs.5.25 lakh following the allotment of flat to him.
The flat in Dwarka Sector 12 was allotted to Mr. Saiyed under the Seventh Self Financing Housing Scheme-1994 floated by the DDA. Though he wrote several letters to the DDA after being allotted the flat in 1998, it was only in October 2002 that the DDA asked him take the physical possession.
Alleging deficiency in service, Mr. Saiyed filed a complaint in the District Consumer Forum seeking payment of interest and compensation for his harassment and mental torture.
While the District Forum dismissed the complaint, the Delhi State Consumer Commission held that Mr. Saiyed was entitled for interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of depositing the entire amount for the flat till the date of possession.
As the DDA filed a revision petition against the State Commission’s order, the NCDRC noted that the complaint in the State Commission was filed in 2004 and the parties were still in litigation despite the lapse of 11 years.
An NCDRC Bench, comprising Justice V.B. Gupta and Suresh Chandra, said in its judgement delivered on Wednesday that it was not inclined to entertain the petition in view of the prolonged litigation over a “small and trivial” matter.
The Bench cited a Supreme Court judgment of 2012 in the case of Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani and another, in which the issue of litigation by the Government and its instrumentalities, causing delay in adjudication of disputes, was dealt with. The apex court had advised the Government and banking institutions to resolve the disputes at their end.
