DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.576/2012

Sujata w/o Late Rajiv

H. No.380, Gali No.2

Chander Lok, Sahadra,

Delhi - 110093

                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority,

Through Administrative Director,

Commissioner (Housing) LIG, DDA,

Dy. Director (Housing) LIG, DDA,

Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,

New Delhi                                                                                                       ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution    :         01.11.2012

       Date of Order            :         03.02.2022

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi

                The Complainant has sought direction against Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred as OP) for enabling her making the balance payment towards the Flat No.578, Sector-28, Pocket GH-3, LIG Flat, Rohini, New Delhi.

            The case of the Complainant is that she has been allotted the aforesaid flat in a draw of lot held on 18.04.11 by the OP. The complainant made the 1st instalment of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of booking or registration. Thereafter, the payment of Rs.1,93,611/- was also made on 26.03.2012 against the demand letter issued by OP. As such, she made around 25% of the total cost of the flat under discussion. As per aforesaid demand letter, the full and remaining payment was required to be paid by 28.03.2012. She made efforts to make the remaining amount and got sanctioned the loan from the Axis Bank as intimated by her vide its letter dated 21.03.2012. The said Bank insisted on booking receipt of flat before loan amount can be disbursed. The booking receipt was got misplaced in the house. She was staying with her father as her husband was expired few year back. Her father was also expired 24.01.2012. During this period, the receipt was got misplaced. Meanwhile, the due date for making payment as per Demand letter of OP had expired. On account of non-availability of booking receipt and expiry of due date of deposition of demand, Bank declined to disburse the loan amount.

The Complainant made many requests for extension of time for making the remaining payment. The OP, ultimately, intimated her that her request for extension of time had been rejected on 21.07.2012.

The OP on the other hand, made preliminary objections on the complaint enumerating that the Complainant is neither consumer nor has proved deficiency in service. The Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the allotments, and remaining amount of Rs.11,78,611/- was to be paid by 28.03.2012. OP further stated that the allotment was subject to terms and conditions as mentioned in DAL, Brochure of the scheme and DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulations, 1968. OP accepts this fact that the ex-allottee/complainant is entitled for the refund after deduction of cancellation charges and no interest would be paid on the amount deposited as per Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of brochure DDA Housing Scheme, 2010. OP also exhorted that as per aforesaid Scheme 2010, no extension for making payment is allowed in any circumstances and application is regretted. It is also maintained that the OP had sent a letter dated 21.08.12 requesting for apply to refund alongwith all original/relevant documents for process of refund. The said letter was received back “undelivered”. OP also sent a letter dated 26.10.12 stating that no extension of time is allowed under the said scheme.

Both the parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments. The Complainant also filed the replication in response to the written statement of the OP. Oral arguments heard and concluded.

This Commission has gone into the all materials placed on record and found that the central issue before us that the Complainant could not made the payment by the schedule period. The disposal cost of the said flat is arrived in the demand letter in a transparent manner indicating the cost of various constituents.

At the Serial No. 10 of the said demand letter, the demanded amount is given as under:-

Demanded amount payable                               29.12.2011

Demanded amount if paid by                             payable including interest

01-OCT-11                               29-DEC-11                                               1136573.00

30-DEC-11                               28-JAN-12                                               1150586.00

29-JAN-12                                27-FEB-12                                               1164598.00

28-FEB-12                                28-MAR-12                                             1178611.00

            It would be seen from the above that the allottee has been provided four dates to deposit the amount, as per her convenience. If she chooses earlier dates, then less amount of interest shall be charged. If she pays as per last option, then interest shall be charged accordingly. Three months window is provided by the OP for making payment. It is further noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DDA v/s Vijaya C. Gurushaney (Mrs.) and anr-(2003)7 SCC 301, “held that the DDA is a creature of statute and, therefore, the policy decision or guidelines formulated by the DDA have binding effect on its transferred of land and their assignees, in the absence of rules to the contrary”.

            Further, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in the case of DDA v/s Raj Bala Grover observed while referring the case of DDA v/s Shri Rattan Lal R.P. No.2754 of 2006 held that “when there was amount claimed by levying misuse charges. DDA did not perform any service as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986 nor there was any consideration charged from the Complainant. Therefore, such a dispute cannot be under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the respondent was not a consumer qua the appellant and the dispute was not a consumer dispute within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act 1986”.

                In the instant case, the aforesaid flat was allotted under the scheme well defined by the terms and conditions of DAL, Brochure of the Scheme and under the guidelines of DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate 1986). It is also noted that four options of payment were also provided for the aforesaid flat to the allottee. This commission is more aligned to go with the observations of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and the ratio of decision as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as mentioned above.

            In nutshell, it is evaluated that there is no question of deficiency in service in consonance with the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We are of considered opinion that the complaint is devoid of merit and rejected accordingly. No order as to costs to the party.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.