Delhi State Commission Pulls Up DDA for Charging Dependent Fee Without Granting Status, Orders Refund and Compensation

January 06, 2026 : The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held the Delhi Development Authority liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for charging dependent membership fees for a period during which dependent status had not been granted.

In Akash Goel v. Commissioner (Sports), Delhi Development Authority (First Appeal No. 430 of 2024), decided on 5 January 2026, the Bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member) set aside the District Commission’s order and ruled in favour of the consumer.

The dispute arose after Akash Goel, a member of a DDA sports complex, got married on 22 November 2023 and applied on 27 November 2023 to include his wife as a dependent member. The DDA sought a marriage registration certificate and kept the request pending until the document was submitted. The certificate was furnished on 22 December 2023, after which his wife was granted dependent membership with effect from December 2023.

On 11 January 2024, Goel paid membership charges in advance till March 2025. However, he later discovered that he had also been charged dependent membership fees for November 2023, even though his wife had not been accorded dependent status during that month.

His complaint and subsequent appeal before the DDA were rejected on the basis of the applicable bye-laws, which stipulated that dependent charges were payable from the date of marriage. The District Commission also dismissed his complaint, citing technical grounds including absence of cause of action and failure to challenge the bye-laws.

The State Commission, however, took a different view. After examining the record, it noted that the DDA had itself withheld dependent status for want of a marriage certificate and granted membership only from December 2023. Despite this, it levied dependent charges for November 2023.

The Commission rejected the authority’s reliance on the bye-laws, observing that such a stance was contrary to public policy and basic logic. It held that a service provider cannot deny membership for a particular period and simultaneously demand fees for that very period. Charging for dependent membership when no dependent status had been conferred amounted to wrongful billing, the Commission said.

Holding the DDA guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission set aside the District Commission’s order and allowed the appeal. It directed the authority to refund ₹120 along with interest of ₹4, totalling ₹124. In addition, the DDA was ordered to pay ₹15,000 towards litigation costs and ₹15,000 as compensation for mental harassment and loss of time.

The Commission also directed the DDA to deposit ₹20,000 in the Consumer Welfare Fund maintained by the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, noting that similarly affected consumers may not be conveniently identifiable. The authority has been directed to comply with the order within two months, failing which action may be initiated under the Act.

The ruling reinforces that statutory bodies cannot rely on internal bye-laws to justify charging consumers for services that were not actually rendered.

Case 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)