| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016 Case No. 243/2012 Smt. Geeta D/o Ram Kishan W/o Shri Surjeet Singh R/o Village & Post Office Singhu, Delhi-110040 ….Complainant Versus - The Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, I.N.A., New Delhi-110023 - The Assistant Director,
(LIG) Housing DDA, ‘D’ Block, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A., New Delhi-110023 ….Opposite Parties Date of Institution : 14.05.12 Date of Order : 20.08.19 Coram: Ms. Rekha Rani, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member ORDER Member - Kiran Kaushal - Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant are that the complainant, Geeta, had applied for a flat under the Scheme of Ambedkar Awas Yozana 1989 for Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribe persons floated by Delhi Development Authority (OP).
1.1 Complainant had deposited Rs.8,200/- as registration fee for allotment of the flat on 24.12.1989 with OP. Copy of the challan dated 27.12.1989 issued by OP is annexed as Annexure-P-2. - The complainant avers that he came to know from the reliable sources that OP conducted a draw on 15.10.2004 and was allotted flat No. 67 Sector-A/10, Pocket–II, Second Floor, Narela, New Delhi. It is next stated that the complainant never received any demand-cum-allotment letter from the OP and was rather shocked to receive a notice dated 14.11.2005 from OP and it is from this notice that the complainant came to know about the flat allotted to the complainant.
- Meanwhile the complainant’s husband suffered from a heart disease and was admitted to the hospital in 2006 and 2007. Copy of the medical documents and bills are annexed as Annexure P-5 and P-6.
- It is next averred that the complainant made representations to OP vide letters dated 07.01.2008, 10.02.2008 and 17.06.2008 stating that due to unavoidable circumstances she could not deposit the requisite cost of the flat within the stipulated period. Therefore, OP had cancelled the flat. Complainant prayed that her registration number be kindly continued under the said scheme for further allotment of flat. It is alleged that the complainant was promised by officials of OP that her registration would be restored and she will be intimated at her residential address but none of the promises made were ever fulfilled.
- Aggrieved by the circumstances above, the complainant approached this forum with the prayer for restoration of her flat allotted in her name and for issuance of demand letter. Additionally the complainant prays for direction to OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and Rs.55,000/- towards for litigation cost.
- OP resisted the complaint inter-alia stating that the complainant had got registered herself for allotment of flat in the year 1989. When the priority number of the complainant matured she was allotted a flat No. 67 Sector-A/10, Pocket–II, Narela, New Delhi and a demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the complainant in a window type envelope by speed post on 15.03.2005. The said demand-cum-letter was received back with the postal remarks ‘refused’. In terms of the demand-cum-allotment letter, the complainant had to make the payment of the amount as per schedule contained in the DAL, failing which there was an automatic cancellation, if, the amount was not paid by 07.08.2005.
- OP submits that as the DAL was received back therefore, OP sent a letter dated 27.04.2005 asking the complainant to collect her undelivered demand-cum-allotment letter, however, no reply was received. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the complainant on 14.11.2005 on account of non-payment and non-furnishing of the documents. Subsequently, the allotment of flat in question was cancelled and the cancellation letter was sent to the complainant on 21.04.2006.
- OP has denied receiving any letter dated 04.04.2008. OP submits that the complainant wrote a letter dated 19.12.2007 i.e. after period of about 2 year and 10 months thereby seeking the restoration of the allotment and since the allotment stood cancelled the same could not be restored. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 18.02.2008 that her request for restoration of the flat cannot be acceded as the complainant failed to make the payment of the demanded amount. Therefore, the complainant was advised to apply for the refund.
- OP further submits that the complainant had deliberately refused to accept demand-cum-letter as is evident from the postal remarks. The complainant is presumed to have noticed the content of demand-cum-allotment as the DAL was sent in a window type envelope. Reiterating the fact that as the complainant failed to make the payment within the stipulated of time, the allotment stood cancelled. The complainant is not entitled for allotment of the flat. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
- Rejoinder to the written statement of OP is filed by the complainant wherein facts of the complaint are reiterated. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant. Evidence of Shri D.K. Gupta, Director(H-2) has been filed on behalf OPs.
- Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
- Arguments of Ld. counsels for parties are heard and record is perused very carefully.
- Admittedly, the complainant had applied for allotment of flat with OP and paid the registration amount accordingly in the year 1989.
- Her allotment of flat was cancelled vide cancellation order dated 21.04.2006. The request for restoration was examined by the competent authority and was not acceded to which was communicated to the complainant vide letter 18.02.2008, exhibited as Exhibit RW-1/9 with OPs evidence. The complainant has filed the case in 2012 that is after a gap of four years of her case being finally closed. Therefore, the complaint is patently barred by limitation.
Since this case, has remained pending with the Forum for many years it is being dealt with merits as well. - The first point of contention between the parties is that the complainant denies having knowledge of demand-cum-allotment letter sent by OP rather it is stated that the complainant was surprised to receive notice dated 14.11.2005 whereby she came to know that she was allotted a flat in Narela.
- Considering the fact that OP had issued the demand-cum-allotment letter to the complainant dated 10.03.2005 which was received back by the complainant with the postal remark refused. There is no reason to disbelieve OP as the DAL was sent in the window type envelope by speed post and it is matter of common knowledge that the letters which are sent through speed post the address of the sender is written on the envelope therefore without opening the envelop one gets to know about the sender. Further we have no reason to disbelieve the postal authorities who have returned the said letter to OP with the remarks ‘Refused’.
- Having known that she had applied in a DDA scheme for allotment of flat complainant ‘refused’ to receive the envelope. We presume that she was not interested and gave up her right to be allotted the plot. This presumption is further reinforced by her conduct when the complainant sat over the show cause notice. The complainant received the show cause notice dated 14.11.2005 and made the first representation to OP vide letter dated 07.01.2008 stating that due to unavoidable circumstances she could not deposit the requisite cost of flat within stipulated period and prayed that her registration number to be continued under the said scheme for further allotment of flat. The complainant has annexed medical documents and cash bills of her husband marked as Annexure P5 and P6. On perusal of the said annexure, it is noticed that complainant’s husband was admitted for six days in 2006 and for eight days in 2007. Considering the fact that in two years the complainant’s husband was admitted for about 14 days and the complainant did not pursue her own case with the OP despite having the knowledge that she had missed the stipulated period to make the payment. It seems that the complainant has been sleeping over her rights and woken up from her slumber after 2 years and 2 months without justifiable reasons for the delay. Therefore, the plea that due to unavoidable circumstances she could not make the payment is not tenable in the eyes of law.
- Hence, we find that the complaint is not only barred by limitation but meritless accordingly we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room. Announced on 20.08.19. | |
