Unfair trade practice: DDA asked to hand over a flat to a man

The city consumer commission has directed Delhi Development Authority to hand over a flat to a man, saying it indulged in unfair trade practice by delaying grant of possession, revising the price without justification and cancelling the allotment over non-payment of dues.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission panel, comprising judicial member S A Siddiqui and member S C Jain, while rejecting DDA's appeal against a district consumer forum's order, directed it to hand over the flat to Rajesh Kumar, who had booked it in 1985 but the allotment was cancelled by DDA over alleged non-payment of dues.
"The material on record clearly shows a clear act of deficiency of services and unrestrictive trade practice on the part of Appellant/Opposite Party (DDA) as they have first failed to explain the reasons of delay in allocation of flats in the year 2000 which were likely to be made available for possession in August 1993....

"Further, no explanation with regard to the reasons of change in the schedule of payment and other terms and conditions have come up from DDA's side as it is admitted by them that schedule of payment was changed from time to time," the panel said, while upholding the forum's order.
In his complaint before the forum, Kumar had alleged that DDA had taken a period of nearly 10 years to hold the draw of lots and allot a flat to him, along with arbitrarily raising the price of the flat. It also said that the authority later cancelled the flat.

After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, the panel said that it was amply proved that DDA had "exploited their dominant position in delaying the allotment of flat and also demanding an amount to be deposited by way of a different schedule from time to time and revising their prices without any justification, cause or reason thereof."
"We are...Led to the conclusion that the conduct of the appellant in denying the possession to the Respondent (Kumar) till date is highly oppressive, constituting not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice...," the commission said.