DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.282/2022
Lt Col Jit Bahadur Chhetri
S/o Shree Ramji Chhetri
R/o Vill./Mohalla-Balaji Nagar
P.O-JJ Nagar, Tehsil-Malkahgiri
Distt.- Rangareddy, Andhra Pradesh
….Complainant
Versus
Army Welfare Housing Organisation
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 28.09.2022
Date of Order : 30.01.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the OP to pay the difference of amount between the agreed demand survey amount and the actual amount taken by the OP from the Complainant as a fresh allottee i.e Rs. 16,25,705/- along with interest at 18% p.a along with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
- It is stated by the Complainant that he is a serving army officer who was allotted or dwelling unit by the OP at Gajendra Vihar, Shishambada, Dehradun, Uttarakhand for residential purpose.
- An application for the demand survey was made by the Complainant on 29.12.2005 for the project and in this regard a letter of acknowledgement was received from AWHO dated 13.01.2006 acknowledging the application of the Complainant and an application cum registration receipt was issued to the Complainant by project name Kasauli by AWHO.
- It is further stated by the Complainant that he requested the OP to adjust the amount deposited for the demand survey towards the earlier registration to the new registration made in 2011. This letter was issued by the Complainant on 19.07.2012. The Complainant was also handed over possession vide letter dated 24.06.2015.
- The Complainant then wrote to the OP on 27.12.2016 that as he had earlier paid for the demand survey earlier but got the house in the second category, he ended up paying more as he was not considered in the first list and he was charged more than those people who got registered first although he had paid during the demand survey.
- This letter of the Complainant was replied to by the OP on 07.03.2017 wherein it was stated:-
you were a demand survey registrant for Dehradun project and had been requested to convert your demand survey to annual registration vide our letter no. …..dated 13.05.2010. Reminder was issued vide letter number… dated 29.11.2010 so that the benefit of existing seniority of demand survey could be given. However you did not convert your demand survey to annual registration and finally applied a fresh on 10.10.2011. Therefore your seniority could only be fixed based on the date 07.10.2011…… in view of the above request for refund cannot be considered.
This letter is challenged before us in the present complaint. The issue is whether the present complaint is barred by limitation.
The Complainant has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that he was in continuous posting in field and operational area and that he was not able to engage a counsel in order to seek legal advice from January 2017 till February 2022 at different places in the country.
The Complainant has also placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah vs MCB Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157 and Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag vs Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107. We have gone through the judgments and are of the opinion that this is not a fit case where discretion ought to be applied as the reason provided by the Complainant is non-specific as to the dates of his posting and he was in know-how of it for many years.
The Complainant was also aware having applied the second time that the price of the dwelling unit had increased yet he applied, paid and took possession of the property without any protest. Once after having taking possession in 2015 and thereafter the response of OP having being received in 2017, the Complainant filed this present complaint in 2022 after considerable delay of 3 years without assigning any sufficient cause as to limitation therefore, we are of the opinion it is not a case where the delay ought to be condoned.
Dismissed as time barred.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
