CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO. CC/613/2017

Date of Institution:-30.01.2018

Order reserved on :-17.03.2023

Date of Decision:-31.03.2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Promila Mahajan

214 D, Ideal Apartment, Nasirpur Dwarka,

Opp. Nasirpur Subzi Mandi, New Delhi – 110045. (Through Ashwani Kumar Mahajan Husband of Complainant Number 1)

2. Ravi Grover

301, Ideal Apartment Nasirpur Dwarka,

Opp. Nasirpur Subzi Mandi, New Delhi – 110045. (Through Ashwani             Kumar Mahajan Husband of Complainant Number 1)

VERSUS

1. Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority

Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi – 110023                                ....OP-1

2. Dy. Director (MIG)/H Delhi Development Authority

Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi – 110023                                ....OP-2          

3. Dy. Director (GH) Delhi Development Authority

Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi – 110023                                ....OP-3

O R D E R

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The Complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs with the averments that the present complaint is filed by the complainants through Sh. Ashwani Kumar through, i.e. husband of complainant no.1. The complainants were registered under registration scheme on New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (Hudco)/MIG of Delhi Development Authority vide registration no.798 dated 10.03.1980 and 25749 dated 31.05.1980. On 03.07.1979 and 27.09.1979, the complainants had deposited Rs.4500/- each vide book no.1306 and 1492. The deposit was for a period of one year which carried the interest @7 percent per annum. The Allotment was on first come first serve basis but subsequently priority numbers were allotted by lottery system. OP-1 could not construct the flats so it launched “Awas Sakar Yojna” which enabled the complainants to switch over to said Yojna. The applicants/registrants were to form a Cooperative Housing Society under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. The societies were formed and accordingly the name of Ideal Cooperative Group Hosing Society Ltd. was given to the society with registration no. at Sr. No. 2013 dated 29.01.1990. They have became the members of the society and their number were at Sr. No. 72 and 24 respectively. A plot measuring 4500 sq. mtr. at pocket 6, plot no. 14, Sector 1A Dwarka, Nasirpur Subzi Mandi was allotted and they were to deposit Rs.49,50,000/- between January, 1991 to April, 1995 with delayed interest. The members of the society were from lower and middle income group. It was very difficult to arrange the said money. OP-1 has defaulted which amounted to deficiency-in-service. The society was short of Rs.6 Lakh at one point of time. OP-1 pressurized to pay the interest for delayed payment. The society has requested OP-1 vide letter dated 13.05.1996 to adjust the delayed interest out of the deposited amount of the members but OP-1 did not agree thus members were squeezed to arrange the money in order to avoid cancellation of plots. The society has requested with OP-1 for the refund of deposits with interest but OP-1 release deposits of sum of the members case. Complainant no. 1 took up the matter with OP-1 vide letters dated 05.10.2005 and 17.07.2006 and also visited to the office of OP-1 but in vain. The complainants were left with no alternative but to take a legal recourse. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP-1 to OP-3 has amended the written statement and filed amended written statement with the preliminary objections that the complaint is false and frivolous. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. The complaint is barred by limitation. NPRS cheme has already been closed so complainants are not entitled for any relief. The policy of OP-1 is binding on the parties. The public notices were issued by OP-1 for the refund so compliant is liable to be rejected, in view of public notices issued by OP-1. Complainants are not a consumers after the closure of the scheme. There is no cause of action in favour of the complainants. The exchange of letters does not extend the period of limitation. The complaint is not maintainable and complainants have no locus standi to file the complaint.

3. On merits, it is averred that the allotment under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 has been closed after vide publicity in newspapers titled as “Hindustan Times” dated 22.11.2012 and 14.05.2014. The public notices were given to the fact that registrants who have not taken refund were advised to approach OP-1 for the refund with requisite documents within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice and any request after the expiry of 30 days will not be entertained on any ground. The file of complainant no. 2 is not traceable and OPs will amend the written statement qua Complainant no. 2 on tracing out the file. The complainant no. 1 has taken the refund. There is no merit in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. The complainants have filed the rejoinder wherein the stand taken in the complaint is reiterated and denied that registration amount has been refunded to the complainant No.1 on 02.01.2001.

5. The complainants have filed the joint affidavit in the evidence. The OPs have filed the affidavit of Smt. Lalita Kumar, Deputy Director Housing in the evidence.

6. We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OPs and perused the material on record.

7. Ld. Counsel for OPs has contended that compliant is barred by limitation as same has been filed beyond the period of 2 years from the publication of notices in the newspaper titled as “Hindustan Times” dated 22.11.2012 and 14.05.2014. He further submitted that there is no application on record for the condonation of delay in filing the complaint, so the complaint is barred by limitation.

8. The husband of Complainant no.1 has contended that the cause of action does not start from 14.05.2014 that is the date of publication of notice in the daily newspaper titled as “Hindustan Times”. He further submitted that there is continuous correspondence between them so period of limitation gets extended by virtue of correspondence with
   OP-1.

9. Section 24 (A) of the Act provides that District Forum, State Consumer Forum or National Commission shall not admit a compliant unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In State Bank of India vs M/s B. S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 AIR SCW 2911 it was held by their Lordship that Section 24 (A) of the Act is per emptory in nature and requires the Consumer Forum to see before it admits the compliant that it has been filed within 2 years from the date of the accrual cause of action. The consumer is under an obligation to show sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay can be condoned if there is sufficient cause for condonation.

10. In the instant case, Complainants have got themselves registered under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The allotments under the said scheme have been made. The registrants, who have not taken the registration money, can approach OP-1 for the refund with all relevant documents within 30 days from the publication of notice and no claim shall be entertained after 30 days. The publication of notice was firstly carried out in newspaper titled “Hindustan Times” dated 22.11.2012 and thereafter on 14.05.2014 in the same newspaper. There is nothing on the record that the complainants have filed any application after the publication of notice in the newspapers. The complainants have approached the OP-1 and thereafter OP-1 through Deputy Director/MIG/H vide letter dated 17.05.2015 has requested the President of Ideal Cooperative Group Housing Society to submit the photocopy of the relevant documents of the members for the purposes of refund as main case file is not readily available in the record.

11. To our mind, the period of limitation starts from the expiry of 30 days after the publication of public notice in the newspaper titles as “Hindustan Times” dated 14.05.2014. The cause of action starts after 30 days from 14.05.2014.The complainants should have filed compliant within period of 2 years but they did not file the any compliant. The OPs cannot contend that limitation period should be reckoned from 13.06.2014 i.e. 30 days after the expiry of the publication of the notice in the newspaper dated 14.05.2014 because they themselves have corresponded with the President of the Ideal Cooperative Housing Society and demanded the details of the members who have not got the refund of their registration money. To our mind, the limitation period starts from this letter dated 17.06.2015. The complainants did not get the refund from the OPs. The cause of action accrued to the complainants on 17.06.2015. They should have filed the complaint within 2 years from the cause of action but no complaint has been filed. The present complaint has been filed on 12.12.2017 i.e. beyond the period of 2 years.

12. The Complainants did not file any application for condonation of delay to file the complaint for the reasons best known to them. The complainants have relied upon letter dated 10.08.2018 written by OPs to them to submit the documents for the refund of the registration money. This letter is of no help to the complainants. This letter cannot extent the period of limitation. The cause of action has accrued to the complainants on 17.06.2015. The complainant should have been filed within 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. There is no correspondence between the parties within the period of 2 years. The letter dated 10.08.2018 cannot extend the period of limitation. It is a settled law that exchange of correspondence between the parties cannot extend the period of limitation. Support is drawn from State of Tripura vs Arabinda Chakrobarty decided on 21.04.2014 by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as on Mahesh Nensi Shah vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2006) III CPJ 414 NC.

13. The complainant is barred by limitation and accordingly same is dismissed. There is no order as to the cost.

File be consigned to record room.

Announce in the open court.