Delhi

New Delhi

CC/562/2012

Meshesh Kumar Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

DDA - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./562/2013                       Dated:  

In the matter of:

MAHESH KUMAR BHARDWAJ,

R/o  594,  Vikas Kunj, Vikas Puri,

New Delhi

                                     ………..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

DDA  through its Vice Chairman,

Delhi Development Authority,

Vikas Sadan,

New Delhi

 

….... OPPOSITE PARTY

ORDER

 

MEMBER: RITU GARODIA

 

The complainant filed a complaint under section 12 & 13 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency on the part of OP authority.  The complainant is a purchaser of the flat bearing No. 594 of Central Govt. Services  Cooperative Land & Housing Society Ltd. society and filed application form No. 135603 Challan No. 1114010 for amount of Rs. 59,200/- on 7/12/2010 with relevant documents seeking conversion of the said flat from lease hold to free hold. The respondent-DDA called for more documents through its letter dated 21/12/2010 which were filed by the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that the respondent did not convert the flat from lease hold to free hold despite fulfillment of requisite formalities including payment of the charges for conversion into free hold and also prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs.

OP in its reply has stated that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action and that no notice under section 53 B of DD Act issued before filing the complaint.  The OP has however, admitted that some deficiency letter was issued to the complainant including the following:-

Detailed list of draw conducted by society specific allotment of flat to individual member duly authenticated by the Secretary/President of the Society and penalty amount of Rs. 1000/- per flat per regularization as per the approved policy of the OP.

The reliance has also been made by the OP upon its letter dated 21/12/2010 which inter-alia speaks of the following documents:

1. Proof of physical possession i.e. attested photocopy of Ration Card/Voter Card/Passport etc.
2. N.O.C. from Mortgage, If the flat is not mortgaged, kindly submit an Affidavit declaring therein that the flat is not mortgaged with any Bank/Financial Institution.
3. A certificate from Society regarding payment of ground rent upto the date of submission of Conversion application.
4. Signature of allottee duly verify by Society by G.P.A. Agreement to sell.

Both the parties have also filed their evidence by way of affidavit.

It is an admitted position by both the parties that the complainant has filed application for seeking conversion of the flat from lease hold to free hold and paid the conversion charges beside requisite documents relevant for conversion as per the OPs conversion/brochure.

The main contention wrangled by the OP is regarding non submission of the list of allottees with specific flat number  and clearance by the Registrar (Cooperative Society) clearing the membership.  It is worth to mention that the list being called for from the complainant by the OP. The result of the draw of lots was held in the year 1984 and the same is being asked from the complainant who cannot be custodian of the same.  Rather the OP was duty bound to call for such documents from the Registrar (Cooperative Society) and/or the concerned society within a reasonable period.  Thrusting on the responsibility upon the complainant by the Op for its own in-action for about 3 decades later is pulpably unfair and unjust. Not permitting the conversion of the flat from lease hold to free hold after filing of the encoded documents and payment of the requisite fee tantamounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.  The objection of the OP as referred above also falls on its own weight, in view of its admission in the written statement/Version and also in the affidavit for evidence that “the Registrar(Cooperative Society) reconsidered its decision and agreed to the decision conveyed on 12/12/84 vide its letter dated 18/2/85.

In other words, the Registrar (Cooperative Society) has already communicated to the OP regarding the draw of lots held on dated 25/3/84 and recommended that as a special case the draw should be accepted. The objection of OP-DDA fails as the OP should have acted upon the formalities necessary to decide the conversion application of the complainant without considering the said objection.

From the above it is clear that the objections filed by the OP to the complainant are not tenable and there has been a deficiency in services which dragged, the complainant to this litigation. We, therefore direct the OP to conversion of the flat from lease hold to free hold since the complainant has fulfilled the requirement of documents and conversion charges as per the brochures of conversion which the OP should consider.  A cost of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed upon the OP.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

President

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

Member