New Delhi: Delhi Development Authority has been slapped with a fine of Rs five lakh by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for its "meritless and frivolous litigation" challenging the compensation awarded to an allottee who was given flat in a dilapidated condition.
Stating that such unscrupulous acts and "gross abuse of process of law" must be dealt with a heavy hand, Justice VB Gupta also directed DDA to recover the punitive damages from the salaries of the delinquent officers, who have been pursuing "meritless and frivolous" litigation with the sole aim of "wasting the public exchequer".
The case relates to Sudershan Bhareja who had applied for LIG Rohini Residential Plotted Scheme, 1981 in which he was given a priority number but no allotment was made to him.
In year 2002, DDA floated another "Narela Housing Scheme, 2002" which provided that waiting registrants of Rohini Scheme could also apply under this. The flats were advertised to be of 'A' quality by DDA. Bhareja was allotted a flat in the scheme. When he went to see the flat, it was in dilapidated condition.
"It was clear from the conditions of the flat, that petitioner (DDA) was trying to write off old flats to the public in general at a higher price without making them aware of its year/date of construction. The same amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent," Justice Gupta noted in the order.
When Bhareja wanted to give up this flat, he was curtely told by DDA that he could not retain his Rohini Scheme priority number. He approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which upheld his case and directed DDA to pay compensation and return deposit taken for Narela flat with 18 per cent interest.
The order was upheld by the State Commission as well. But DDA chose to appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the top appellate authority deciding on consumer disputes.
Justice Gupta said there was no explanation at all from DDA as to why after collecting huge amount of money from the general public as registration fee etc, it did not take any steps for allotting plot or flat for more than 21 years.
Justice Gupta pointed out that deficiency on the part of DDA is "writ large" in this case. Slamming the civic body, Justice Gupta said having miserably failed in allotting plot to Bharjea and others till 2002 and in order to cover up its inefficiency and deficiency, it floated a new scheme in Narela and "allured" Bhareja to join its new scheme where old flat was offered, which has been admitted by DDA.
"Thus, deficiency in service and deceptive practice adopted by the Petitioner Authority (DDA) being writ large in this case, it had the audacity to shift the entire blame on the respondent," it said.
The order said DDA "wants to have the cake and eat it too", as admittedly it is enjoying possession of the plot/flat as well as amount paid by the respondent.
"Such type of unscrupulous act on the part of Petitioner Authority should be dealt with heavy hands who after grabbing the money from the applicants, enjoy and utilise their money but do not hand over the plot/flat, on one pretext or the other. Petitioner wants the respondent to run from one fora to other, so that petitioner can go on enjoying respondent's money without any hindrance," it said.
The order said equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party fruits of the decree, must be dealt with heavy hands.
"Public bodies spent more money on contesting cases than the amount they might have to pay to the claimants. In addition thereto, precious time, effort and other resources go down the drain in vain. Public Bodies are possibly an apt example of being penny wise, pound-foolish," it said.
"...present petition is nothing but gross abuse of process of law and same is required to be dismissed with punitive damages. Therefore, present revision petition stand dismissed with punitive damages of Rs five lakhs in all. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs one lakh shall be paid, to the respondent," the order said.
Comments
0 comment