ORDER

15.01.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the permanent residence at H.No.622-A, Rishi Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034 and temporary residence at H.No.C-9/187, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi in the year 2002. It is stated that complainant Sh. Paramjeet Singh S/o Late Inder Singh had booked a flat under the scheme of New Pattern-1979-LIG at DDA. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1500/- through bank challan dated 06.09.1979.
2. It is stated that the OPs have issued the receipt serial no.59767 book no.598 dated 31.10.1979 for Rs.1500/- in the name of complainant and also issued certificate with no.2098 dated 12.03.1980. It is further stated that complainant had filed an application for information of allotment of LIG flat under the scheme of new pattern 1979 under the RTI act 2005 on 25.04.2011 and thereafter 07.07.2011, 29.08.2011 and 19.01.2012. The complainant file no.45(378) 91/NP/PT. A reply issued by respondent on 23.01.2012 stating that all the efforts have been made to trace the file from the record. But it is not possible to trace out the same without the file or details of the flat no.
3. It is stated that complainant filed an appeal to the reply under RTI act 2005 on 06.02.2012 and a reply received on 07.02.2012. Thereafter, complainant again sent a reminder to the application for information of allotment of LIG flat on 12.03.2012, 13.04.2012, 07.06.2012, 09.08.2012 and 30.07.2012 to Commissioner (Housing LIG), Chairman, Vice-Chairman (Housing LIG). It is further stated that OP5 issued the letter/reply dated 17.10.2013 to the applications and instructed/directed to attend the office for verification of complainant’s documents genuineness and also directed to deposit certain documents. The complainant had deposited/handed over the required documents by hand during the visit to office on 17.11.2013 but complainant did not receive any information about the allotment of LIG after verification of documents/signatures of the complainant.
4. It is stated that complainant filed an application for information regarding the allotment of flat under RTI act 2005 dated 23.09.2014 and 12.05.2015 but all the efforts went in vain. It is further stated that complainant had filed an application/information to the  Hon’ble Chairman DDA Raj Niwas vide registry no.06.01.2016 and 11.01.2016. The OPs neither issued the allotment letter and nor any allotment received by complainant. It is further stated that complainant has seen a ray of hope of allotment of LIG flat since 31.10.1979 but allotment of flat was delayed, defeated in the light or due to the regular negligence in service, non-responsive nature on regular course of duties and defeat the right of general public. The OPs being the service provider have adopted an unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice and complainant suffers from deficiency of service, hence present complaint filed.
5. The complainant is seeking direction to issue allotment letter of LIG flat in favor of complainant, to execute requisite/necessary documents of the title for the allotment of the flat in favor of complainant, to pay compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for the harassment, mental and physical agony and to pay litigation charges to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
6. OP filed WS and taken preliminary objection that present complaint is false, frivolous baseless and misconceived. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as alleged and complainant is taking advantage of his own wrong. It is further stated that main allotment file is not traceable. As per the record obtained from D.D(System,Sh.Paramjeet Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh R/o622-A, Shakur Basti, Delhi 34 got himself registered for allotment of LIG flat under NPRS-1979 vide application no.23737. A priority no. issued 19802 against the registration no.2098. It is further stated that on the term of priority number the complainant was declared successful for allotment of LIG flat no.109 A, Type I, Pocket A2 Group 4, Kundli Gharoli in the year 1991 but no payment received towards the allotment of the flat consequently the allotment of the flat stood automatically cancelled on the account of non-payment as per terms and conditions of the allotment.

7. It is stated that after deep slumber Sh. Paramjeet Singh R/o C9/187 Sector5, Rohini approached DDA in the year 2011 and sought some information through RTI Act which was duly replied vide a letter dated 23.01.2012 and further vide letter dated 07.02.2012 alongwith the details of flat allotment. It is further stated that complainant submitted copy of documents and his ID proof. The complainant was informed about cancellation of abovesaid allotted flat. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. The OPs referred to the case of Skyline Directors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of UP, VII (2008) SLT 48 (SC). It is further stated that several draws of lots under NPRS 1979 held and every draw held by DDA were published in the leading newspapers intimating the public upto which priority number allotment has been made and results were also published and displayed on website of DDA and notice board.
8. It is stated that NPRS scheme 1979 has been closed after giving public notice in the leading newspaper on 12.11.2012 in Times of India (English) and Hindustan Times (English and Hindi) invited the attention of registrants under new NPRS scheme 1979 and other schemes of DDA and informed therein that all the schemes have already been closed and further advised to the registrants to approach DDA and apply for refund with all requisite documents within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice, in case they have not taken any refund of their registration. It is stated that complainant did not bother to approach DDA for his refund therefore, not entitled to any allotment and referred to the case of Poonam Verma and Ors. VS DDA VII (2008) SLT 48 (SC).
9. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be rejected as same is beyond the time as per section 24 of CP Act 1986. It is further stated that allotment of the flat under reference got cancelled by DDA due to non payment of demanded amount raised vide demand cum allotment letter. The complainant has not approached DDA after deep slumber of 32 years therefore, present complaint is barred by limitation.
10. OP referred the case of Haryana Development Authority & Ors. VS Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. (2013) 14 SCC 758 and State Bank of India Vs. B.S Agricultural Industries AIR 2009 SC 2210 .
11. The OPs on merit denied all the allegations and averments made by complainant and contents of preliminary objections reiterated. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice on the part of DDA.
12. Rejoinder filed by complainant. The complainant denied all the allegations made in the WS and reiterated contents of complaint.
13. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. Complainant relied on copy of voter ID card Ex.CW1/1, copy of bank challan dated 06.09.1979 Ex.CW1/2, copy of deposit receipt Ex.CW1/3, copy of certificate of registration Ex.CW1/4, copy of RTI application dated 24.04.2011, 07.07.2011, 29.08.2011 and 19.01.2012 Ex.CW1/5 (Colly), copy of reply dated 23.01.2012 Ex.CW1/6, copy of reply dated 07.02.2012 Ex.CW1/7, copy of RTI  application dated 12.03.2012,07.06.2012, 09.08.2012 and 30.07.2013 Ex.CW1/8 (Colly), copy of application receipt dated 17.10.2013 Ex.CW1/9, copy of application dated 17.11.2013 Ex.CW1/10, copy of receipt of application dated 23.09.2014, 12.05.2015 Ex.CW1/11 (Colly) and copy of application receipt dated 06.01.2016 and 11.01.2016 Ex.CW1/12.
14. DDA filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Dharmender Sharma Deputy Director LIG housing. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP relied on public notice dated 22.11.2012 Ex.RW1/1.
15. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OPs.
16. We have heard Sh. Ajit Singh counsel for complainant and Ms. Ravi Prabha counsel for OP and perused the record.
17. It is admitted case of complainant that he had applied for   LIG flat under scheme of New Pattern 1979 LIG flat with OP DDA. The complainant had deposited Rs.1500/- on 06.09.1979 and a receipt was issued by OP dated 31.10.1979, thereafter, a certificate dated 12.03.1980 also issued in favour of the complainant. The complainant after 21 years i.e in April 2011 filed RTI applications seeking the information about the fate of his booking of the LIG flat. The complainant kept on filing RTIs till 2016 to different authorities. In November 2013 complainant also visited the office of the OP and submitted some documents. The present complaint filed in April 2016 after 36 years of booking of the flat. As per stand taken by OP a draw held for allotment of the flat and complainant was declared successful for allotment of LIG flat no. 109A, Type 1, Pocket A2, Group 4, Kundli Gharoli in the year 1991. The complainant did not take any steps and ultimately the allotment was cancelled thereafter the NPRS 1979 scheme was closed vide/notice in daily newspapers on 21.11.2012. Now complainant by way of the present complaint seeking allotment of flat after 25 years of allotment process. The copy of public notice issued in the daily newspapers filed on record.
18. In these circumstances section 24 of the CP Act, 1986 provided.

As per section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : -

1. The District Forum, 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.

2. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission , as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission , the State Commission or the District Forum,as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

19. Admittedly, the present case filed after 25 years of date of allotment of flat and after 4 years of closure of the scheme.  There is no document filed on record that during this period complainant had taken any step except he files RTIs.
20. In our considered opinion the present complaint is barred by limitation and filing of RTI does not give rise to cause of action.
21. The counsel for complainant referred to the judgment of DDA Vs Ashok Kumar Goel FA No.380/2010 of State Commission Delhi decided on 09.01.2014. We have gone through the judgment, the facts are distinguishable. In the present facts and circumstances of the referred case complainant had reiterated about the change of address later. In the present complaint there is no averment that at any point of time complainant changed his residential address and informed the DDA and DDA did not take any reference of change of address. In the referred case also there was a demand of issuance of demand cum allotment letter prior to filing of the complaint, however no such averment made in the present complaint.
22. The counsel for complainant referred to the case of Vinod Kumr Vs. DDA FA No.332/2010 of State Commission Delhi decided on 31.03.2014. In this case complainant deposited three installments after allotment of the flat and alleged that he has completed all the formalities. The facts of the referred case are distinguishable in the present fact and circumstances of the case.  The counsel for complainant further referred the case of DDA Vs Santosh Sharma & Ors LPA No.307/2014 decided  on 10.12.2014. In this case also the demand letter was sent to a wrong address of the complainant. The complainant in the referred case approached to the Public Grievance Cell in 2002, however, in the present case no such steps taken by complainant and it is not  a change of address by the complainant, therefore, this referred case is also distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant also referred to case DDA vs Om Prakash FA No.09/475 State Commission Delhi decided on 10.01.2012. We have gone through the case, in this case the allotment was in the name of Tika Ram who died and did not comply the terms  and conditions of demand cum allotment letter and made a representation of flat allotment than DDA allotted flat at Kundli Gharoli which was refused, however,  in the present case the facts are distinguishable, therefore, this case is of no help to the complainant. The complainant counsel further relied on judgment of Harvansh Malik Vs DDA District Forum No.7 Sheikh Sarai. This order is pending upon District Commission and facts are also distinguishable from the present case.
23. We are of considered opinion that in these peculiar and special circumstances of the case the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complainant is also barred by limitation.
24. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.

25. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  15.01.2024.

    SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER