DDA Liable For Charging Dependent Fee Without Granting Membership: Delhi State Consumer Commission
Pranav B Prem
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 and unfair trade practice for charging dependent membership fees despite not granting dependent status. The Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the District Commission’s order, and directed refund of the excess amount along with compensation and deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
The complainant, Akash Goel, applied to the DDA on 27 November 2023 to include his wife as a dependent member in the sports complex. The DDA asked him to submit the marriage registration certificate, and the request was kept pending until the certificate was furnished. The complainant submitted the certificate on 22 December 2023, after which his wife was granted dependent membership with effect from December 2023. Thereafter, 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, even though his wife had not been accorded dependent status during that period.
The complainant’s representations and appeal before the DDA were rejected by invoking the bye-laws. He then approached the District Consumer Commission seeking refund of ₹120 along with compensation and litigation costs. The District Commission dismissed the complaint on technical grounds, including absence of cause of action and non-challenge to the bye-laws. Aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission.
The DDA contended that the dependent membership charges were levied in accordance with the applicable bye-laws, which provided that such charges were payable from the date of marriage. It was also submitted that the complainant was aware of and had consented to the rules, regulations and bye-laws at the time of applying for membership.
Examining the record, the Commission found that the complainant’s wife was not granted dependent membership until 22 December 2023. It noted that despite withholding the membership for want of a marriage certificate, the DDA still charged dependent membership fees for November 2023. Rejecting the DDA’s reliance on the bye-laws, the Commission observed that such a stance was “not only in absolute repugnance to public policy, but also to common logic,” as the complainant was charged for a period when his wife was not even accorded dependent status.
Holding that the DDA had wrongfully charged fees for a period during which the complainant did not avail any dependent membership benefits, the Commission concluded that the authority was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It set aside the District Commission’s order and allowed the appeal.
The Commission directed the DDA to refund ₹120 along with interest of ₹4, totalling ₹124, pay ₹15,000 towards litigation costs, and ₹15,000 as compensation for mental harassment and loss of time. In addition, the DDA was directed to deposit ₹20,000 in the Consumer Welfare Fund maintained by the State Commission, noting that similarly affected consumers may not be conveniently identifiable. The authority was directed to comply with the order within two months, failing which action could be taken under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Cause Title: Akash Goel v. Commissioner (Sports), Delhi Development Authority
Case No.: First Appeal No. 430 of 2024
Coram: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member)
