Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the view taken by majority of the members of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, disapproving discrimination in pricing amongst the allottee belonging to the same category and class in a Housing Scheme of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

A discrimination was said to have arisen when the allottees of Rohini Housing Scheme, 2003 were issued demand letters on September 15, 2003 and they made payments accordingly but, only a few days later, the DDA, by its resolution dated September 29, 2003, changed the pricing policy.

This change led to the DDA demanding a lesser amount from the other allottees of the same Scheme who were issued demand letters after the resolution of September 29^th.

Allottees moved the District Forum stating prejudice caused to them vis-a-vis subsequent allottees, particularly when the subsequent allottees were not subjected to several charges although they were standing, for all practical purposes, at par and at the similar footing.

The District Forum allowed the complaints to the extent of service charges and share money after finding it to be a case of disparity and discrimination in relation to the similarly situated persons. The State Commission also agreed with the District Forum and dismissed the appeals filed by DDA.

Before the Top Court, DDA relied on Tamil Nadu Housing Board & ors. v. Sea Shore Apartments Owners Welfare Association to submit that the dispute relating to fixation of price of flats by the Housing Board may not be of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Foram and that no interference could be made in the matter of fixation of price by the allotting authority.

however, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose noted that in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board case, an entirely different factual situation was before it, where the final selling price by the Board was not the same as the earlier projected tentative price and the additional amount as demanded by the allotting authority consequent to re-fixation of price was held to be neither unfair nor unreasonable.

"The present case is of an entirely different scenario and of different issues, pertaining to discrimination amongst the similarly placed persons, who had applied contemporaneously in the same category and in the same Housing Scheme", said the top court while holding that the view of the majority members of the National Commission was a reasonably possible view of the matter; and it saw no reason to consider interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Case Title:  D.D.A. vs. RAJINDER PRASAD & ORS.