DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.498/11
Jasmine Chawla
D/o Shri H.C. Chawla
R/o E-39
Sector-41, First Floor
NOIDA (UP). .…Complainant
VERSUS
The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan
INA, New Delhi. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution:14.12.2011
Date of Order : 17.05.2023
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award directing the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to allot a Janta Flat to the complainant in pursuance of his priority No.14317 (ii) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation for sufferance etc.; (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- on litigation charges etc.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant had applied for allotment of Janta Flat under Janta Housing Scheme 1997 of OP. It was alleged by complainant that she was allotted a flat but same was cancelled due to no-communication from the complainant. It was also stated that the complainant was assigned a file No. J(339)(603)05/JHRS/NA.4122 on allotment. It was also stated that the address mentioned in the application at which her grand father used to live but on his death, the complainant and her parents shifted to other address. She wrote a letter to OP on 25.07.2006 to know the status of her application. She was informed that a flat was allotted to her bearing the No.294, II Floor, B-4 Plot No.3, Narela, New Delhi vide draw held on 15.10.2004. It was stated that the complainant was informed about allotment but finding no response, the allotment was cancelled. The letter dated 25.07.2006 of the complainant was sent and annexed at Annexure-A/1. Subsequent to this, complainant received a letter from OP dated 20.09.2006 informing her that the allotment made in her name had been cancelled. On the allotment made through draw, DAL dated 16.03.2005 was sent and complainant failed to make payment as per schedule of DAL. The OP also intimated complainant about cancellation vide letter dated 13.03.2006. The same is enclosed as Annexure-A/2. The complainant also visited the office of OP to apprise its officials but all her pleadings fell on deaf ear of OP. The complainant again wrote a letter dated 15.07.2010 to VC-DDA. The OP sent its response vide letter informing that “your case has been examined at length but could not be acceded to as it is not permissible under policy”. It was alleged by complainant that due to malafide and arbitrariness, the OP had committed deficiency in service.
OP, on the other hand, filed its written statement interalia raising preliminary objections. It was contended that the complaint was time barred under Section 24A of C.P. Act, hence liable to be dismissed. It was stated that JHRS Scheme had already been closed in terms of judgment of Poonam Verma Vs. DDA 2007 (13) SCC 154 where it was held that after the closure of the Scheme, there is no question of any allotment. It was also further contended that in terms of judgment of DDA Vs. Surender Sigh R.P. No.3791 of 2012 of Hon’ble National Commission where it was held that if registered person got a flat in any locality, once the flat is surrendered or cancelled due to non-compliance of requirements, the DDA’s obligation to allot a flat will be deemed to have been discharged. The complainant did not deposit the requisite amount, hence complainant is not entitled for any relief as has been held in the judgment of Skyline Vs. State of UP 2008 (8) SCC 265. OP also mentioned the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan & Co. Vs. Wazir Jairvir Chand [1989] 1 SCC 264 where it is held that if any person is staying in the premises, there is no reason why it should not be served.
OP further maintained that as per acknowledgement card, DAL dated 16.03.2005 was duly served at the given address through speed post. After receiving the letter, the person signed the acknowledgement card and same was received by OP. Further, as per acknowledgement, SCN dated 06.02.2006 was also duly served at the address of the complainant i.e. D-52, Greater Kailash Enclave-II, New Delhi. After closure of Janta Housing Scheme 1996, wide publicity in leading Newspapers was given. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to allotment rather she is entitled only for refund of her registration money as admissible as per policy.
Both the parties have filed its evidence in affidavit. The OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.02.2013. The hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 08.08.2013 set aside the exparte order. Written statement was allowed to be filed. The complainant wished to file rejoinder but could not file. Evidence by way of affidavit have been filed by both the parties. Written submissions of both the parties do not seem to have been filed. Case was put up for final arguments. It was noticed by the Commission that none has been appearing on behalf of complainant since 18.04.2019. It was considered appropriate to allow the oral arguments of OP and same were concluded. Since complainant has not been appearing since long and complaint pertains to 2011. It was considered appropriate to dispose of the complaint on merit. Hence was reserved for orders.
This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record. Due consideration was given to oral arguments. As is seen from the above discussion, that the complainant was declared successful drawee in the draw held on 15.10.2004. She was allotted a Janta Flat bearing No. 294 GRP-1 Pkt-3, Sector-B-4 II floor Narela. It was noticed that the complainant was sent intimation about the allotment and DAL for deposition of requisite amount of the allotment was also sent on 16.03.2005. As per DAL, if the allottee does not deposit the requisite amount, the said allotment stands automatically cancelled. The OP has placed the acknowledgement cards bearing the signature of person who got the delivery of the letters/items. The complainant has not rebutted the evidences of OP in relation to the receipt of letters at the given address. She only contended that after passing of her grandfather and her marriage, she shifted her residence. In the absence of counter evidence, the evidences advanced by OP cannot be ignored. The OP has mentioned the following cases as discussed above in the reply of OP:-
- Poonam Verma Vs. DDA
- DDA Vs. Surinder Singh
- Skyline Vs. State of UP
- Madan & Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand
The ratios of above mentioned judgments establishes the case of OP. As a result of which, the Commission is convinced that the OP is not liable for deficiency in service. It may be noted that the complainant had deposited Rs.5,000/- as application fee with OP. the OP vide its reply accepted this fact that the amount deposited with OP shall be refunded as per policy of the OP. But the said amount has not been refunded so far.
The Commission direct OP to refund amount of Rs.5,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of draw i.e. within three months from the receipt of this order failing which rate of interest @ 10% per annum shall be levied till its realization. The other requests of the complainant are rejected as complaint fails.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
