DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.306/2023
Dhanesh Chander
R/o A-36, Ashok Vihar,
Phase-II, New Delhi-110052
S/o Late Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta
Working Address at A-301, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110024
….Complainant
Versus
1. Noida Authority
(Through Chairman, Noida Authority)
2. CEO, Noida Authority
3. AGM (Res. Plot), Noida Authority
All R/o Administrative Complex, Sector -6,
Noida -201301, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution :19.10.2023
Date of Order : 09.10.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
None for OP.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that complainant along with his family members applied for a General Category plot with New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida).
2. Complainant and his family members deposited Rs.1,40,000/- each for four plots measuring 450 Sq. mtrs. It is stated that OP held draw of lots for allotment of the plot on 02.07.2005 but due to major illegalities in holding the said draw Hon’ble Allahabad High Court cancelled the draw vide order dated 04.07.2005 and directed OP to hold fresh draw of lots to be conducted by a Committee. It was directed that a fresh draw of lots should be conducted on 12.09.2008 i.e within two months, after proper investigation of the irregularities. Pursuant to the order, OP refunded the application money of Rs.1,39,000/- taken during the financial year 2005-06 and retained Rs.1,000/- from each applicant till holding of the subsequent draw.
3. The committee appointed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court fixed the date of draw of lots for 08.11.2008. Accordingly the draw was held and after the draw, the unsuccessful applicants were refunded Rs.1,000/- each with interest. Three family members of the complainant were refunded the said amount of Rs.1,000/- each with interest but the complainant was not refunded this amount as this amount was to be adjusted towards the cost of the plot of the successful applicants of the draw. Thus, the complainant was confident that he was as successful candidates that is why his money was not refunded but to utter surprise of the complainant he did not receive any allotment letter from OP nor any response of any nature.
4. Complainant vide letter dated 01.06.2009 wrote a letter to OP to know about the status of the application but to no avail. It is stated that Rs.1,000/- which was deposited with OP stood outstanding in the books of the complainant as pending application money with Noida Authority which stood duly accounted for in the books of the complainant till date as well as in his balance sheet so filed with the Income Tax Department along with his ITR. Thus, the claim of the complainant is legally subsisting till date.
5. Complainant again sent a letter to OP on 24.02.2022 and also filed an RTI demanding the details of the draw and the status/fate of the application of the complainant. As no reply was forthcoming, complainant filed another RTI on 06.12.2022 seeking the details of the applicants who were successful in the draw of lots which was held for the second time. Complainant also sought information regarding the status of the application of the complainant and the reason why refund of Rs.1,000/- was not provided to the complainant.
6. As the complainant did not receive any response of the RTI, he filed first appeal on 02.02.2023 to the CPIO for supply of information. It was only after he filed second appeal on 12.04.2023 and supplied copy of the same to the First Appellate Authority that he was called for hearing on 01.06.2023 before the First Appellate Authority. It was before the First Appellate Authority the complainant perused the list of successful applicants and the complainant was surprised to note that as per the list the draw was held on different dates i.e 05.11.2008 to 08.11.2008 whereas as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court the draw was to be held only on one date i.e 08.11.2008. Secondly the said list was only signed by the AGM and did not bear the signature of the committee members.
7. It is further stated that since OP is withholding application money of Rs.1,000/- of the complainant till date the right of the complainant is persisting as on date for allotment of the plot with damages or in the alternative, to compensate for the loss incurred by the complainant for such non-allotment of the plot and its enjoyment for the last about more than 14 years.
8. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, complainant prays for directions to OP
- To call for the complete records of the Residential Plot Scheme Code 2004(1) and the draw allegedly held on 08.11.2008 and peruse the same.
- After perusal of the records, hold that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency of service, manipulation of the conditions of the delivery of service, etc.
- After holding the OPs guilty for such deficiency, direct the OPs to allot a plot measuring 450 sq. meters in Resi. Plot Scheme Code 2004(1) forthwith on payment of the cost of plot as stipulated in the brochure with damages of Rs.50 Lakhs.
- Direct the OPs in case of failure to allot the plot, to pay compensation of Rs. 6 Crores with litigation expenses determined by this Hon’ble Commission in the facts and circumstances of the case.
- Pass any other order/direction which this Hon’ble Commission as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Despite due service as none appeared on behalf of OP to contest the case OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.01.2024. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments have been filed on behalf of complainant. Submissions made are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
10. It is complainant’s case that Rs.1,000/- with interest was not refunded by OP after holding the draw of lots for the second time on 08.11.2008. Complainant with his complaint has filed a letter dated 01.06.2009 seeking the status of application made for allotment of residential plots from OP.
11. It is noticed that the complainant after 2009 wrote a letter to CPIO on 24.02.2022 enquiring the status of the allotment of plots. Complainant has not explained the inordinate delay of about 13 years for not seeking refund or enquiring about the status of the residential plots. Complainant has stated that the said amount stood outstanding in the books of the complainant as well as in his balance sheet so filed with the Income Tax Department along with his ITR. It is unfathomable that the complainant who was filing his ITRs every year noticed the outstanding amount after almost 13 years .
12. The cause of action in the instant case arose in the year 2009 when the complainant did not receive any response from OP regarding the status of his application money and allotment of the residential plot. The complainant ,thereafter wrote to CPIO on 24.02.2022 and filed the complaint in this Commission on 19.10.2023. It is settled that communication with OP does not extend the limitation.
13. Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 states as under-
Section 69 –
Limitation period.
69. (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
14. In light of the fact that the complaint was not filed within the statutory period, complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
