Delhi State Consumer Commission Holds DDA Liable For Wrongful Fee Collection, Orders Rs. 20,000 Deposit In Consumer Welfare Fund
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) liable for deficiency in service for charging dependent membership fees despite not grant-ing dependent membership. The Commission allowed the appeal and directed the DDA to refund the excess amount and deposit...
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) liable for deficiency in service for charging dependent membership fees despite not grant-ing dependent membership. The Commission allowed the appeal and directed the DDA to refund the excess amount and deposit Rs. 20,000 in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Akash Goel, approached the Delhi Development Authority on 27 November 2023 for inclusion of his wife as a dependent member to access the DDA Sports Complex and its facilities. The Opposite Party initially declined the request and, by a letter dated 28 November 2023, sought submission of the complainant's marriage registration certificate.
Upon submission of the certificate on 22 December 2023, the complainant's wife was granted de-pendent membership with effect from December 2023. Subsequently, on 11 January 2024, the complainant paid membership charges in advance till March 2025. However, he was also charged dependent membership fees for November 2023, despite his wife not having been accorded de-pendent status during that period.
The complainant's representations and appeal before the DDA were rejected, prompting him to approach the District Consumer Commission seeking refund of the excess fee of Rs. 120, along with compensation and litigation costs. The District Commission dismissed the complaint on tech-nical grounds, including lack of cause of action and non-challenge to the bye-laws. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the State Commission.
Arguments of the Opposite Party
The Delhi Development Authority contended that the dependent membership charges were levied in accordance with the applicable bye-laws, which provide that such charges are payable from the date of marriage. It was further submitted that the complainant was fully aware of and had con-sented to the Rules, Regulations, and Bye-laws at the time of applying for membership, as con-tained in the club brochure.
Observations & Decision of the Commission
The Commission rejected the Opposite Party's contention that dependent membership fees were chargeable from the date of marriage under the bye-laws. It observed that dependent membership was granted only on 22 December 2023, and charging fees for a period prior to such recognition was contrary to public policy and common logic.
Setting aside the findings of the District Commission, the State Commission held that the com-plainant was wrongly charged dependent membership fees for November 2023, a period during which his wife was not recognised as a dependent member of the Sports Complex.
The Commission held the Opposite Party guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for levying fees for months during which no membership benefits were availed. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the District Commission's order was set aside. The DDA was directed to:
• Refund Rs. 120, along with interest of Rs. 4, totalling Rs. 124;
• Pay Rs. 15,000 towards litigation costs; and
• Pay Rs. 15,000 as compensation.
Further, the Commission directed the DDA to deposit Rs. 20,000 in the Consumer Welfare Fund maintained by the State Commission, noting that similarly affected consumers may not be conven-iently identifiable.
Case Title: Akash Goel v. Commissioner (Sports), Delhi Development Authority
Case No.: First Appeal No. 430 of 2024