DDA not liable to provide services in flats sold
Updated: December 1, 2015 08:22 IST | Akanksha Jain
The Delhi State Consumer Commission has held that a flat sold by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on ‘as is where is’ basis, without any element of basic amenities in the allotment letter, does not make the authority liable for providing the same later.
The Commission concluded that a person is not a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act if he buys a flat on ‘as is where is’ basis and if the allotment letter also does not promise to render any service with respect to the subject flat.
“…the ready-built flats were sold on ‘as is where is basis’. It is not the stand of the complainant that electricity was not available in the area. It is the own case of complainant that while taking the possession, a form was filed by him for water and electricity connection. As per stand of appellant/DDA, BSES Rajdhani has also consumed time in providing the electricity connection. It is not the case of complainant that basic amenities were not available in the area. The complainant has also been benefited in terms of appreciation of price of the flat,” the State Commission said.
In the case before the Commission, the DDA had challenged the decision of a District Forum that awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to a south Delhi resident, who was allotted a DDA MIG flat in 2008 without any water and electricity connection.
The DDA, in 2008, launched its housing scheme and invited applications for ready built flats, under which the complainant was declared successful.
The complainant said that in April 2010 when he went to take physical possession of the flat, he was told by the onsite junior engineer to furnish an affidavit that he was willing to take the possession without electric and water connection as the same were not then available.
Though he initially refused to take possession without basic amenities, he finally did so after waiting for 90 days but did not furnish an affidavit.
Even after completing all formalities, when he was not provided basic amenities, the complainant moved the District Forum seeking the services, return of the cost of the flat and Rs 10 lakh for the harassment so caused.
The District Forum had then directed the DDA to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000 for not providing electricity and water connection to the complainant at the time of the delivery of the possession, and also awarded Rs.20,000 as cost of litigation.
The DDA challenged the decision contending that the District Forum had erred in holding that the respondent/complainant was a ‘consumer’ as ready built flats were sold on “as is where is basis”. It was contended that there was no element of service in the contract and that the consumer complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable. The DDA also said that at the time of taking possession, no protest was lodged by the complainant and that electricity was to be provided by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Water was to be provided through water tankers.