DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.543/2010
Anand Khatri
J-9, Top Floor
Kirti Nagar
New Delhi-110015. …Complainant
Delhi Development Authority
D-Block
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110026. …Opposite Party
Date of Institution:13.08.2010
Date of order :28.06.2022
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
The Complainant has requested to pass an order (i) to allot a LIG Flat in Delhi on priority basis; (ii) to allot a flat on ground floor as his age is 59 years; and to allot a flat at the prevailing rate of 1995 etc.
The brief facts leading to the case are as under:-
The complainant applied for LIG flats under New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 of DDA (hereinafter referred to as OP) and deposited Rs.1500/- with OP vide Gen. Registration No.54075 priority No.30829 and certificate issued by OP is enclosed herewith. The copy of deposit Challan is also enclosed as a proof of deposition of the amount mentioned above. It was also added that the OP had announced 42 housing registration schemes for the benefit of the people and allotment has been made in all 42 schemes to all registrants. It is also pointed out by the complainant that the cost of constructions of LIG flat was declared Rs.18000/-.
The OP, on the other hand, vide its written statement took preliminary objections/submissions inter-alia asserting that the complaint was time-barred under Section 24 A of the CP Act 1986 as the same is filed much beyond the period of two years of limitation. The limitation period of two years has also been upheld in terms of judgment of Kerala Agro Vs. Bijoy Kumar 2002 (3) SCC 165. As such, the complaint does not disclose any cause of action.
Further, it is accepted by OP that the complainant did apply as mentioned above. Cost of flat as shown in NPRS 1979 brochure was only estimated one. It is also submitted that on its turn of priority number, the complainant was allotted a LIG flat No.23, Second Floor, Sector-A-10, Pocket-4, Group II, Narela Delhi through computerised draw held on 30.3.1994 on hire purchase basis. The demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to his registered address in block dates 19.4.1994 -25.4.1994, with the request to deposit the initial cost of flat on or before the last date i.e. 24.7.1994 as exhibited Ex OP-1/1(Colly). The balance cost was to be deposited in 144 monthly instalment @Rs.2056.86 each commencing from 10.6.1994. Since the complainant failed to deposit the same, hence, a notice was issued to him on 1.12.1994. Even then, he failed to respond the notice. The said allotment of flat was cancelled and cancellation letter was sent on 04.04.1995 as exhibit Ex OP-W-1/3.
It is also narrated further that the said scheme of the OP is also closed way back and Public Notice was also issued as mentioned by OP in oral arguments, to this effect that, if any registrant remained pending for allotment, he can contact the OP. OP also stated that on closure and cancellation of allotment, the complainant is entitled only for refund of initial deposit as per policy on furnishing the related original/required documents.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavits. Written statement is on record so is the rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into material placed on record and also considered the oral arguments advanced before us. It was noticed that the complainant could respond in 2008 only to its registration made in 1979 and sent some letters to the OP. Thereafter he filed an RTI application in 2009 for seeking information. However, during the arguments, the OP’s counsel asserted that the Public Notice for closing the scheme was issued in the years between 2004 to 2006 and the complainant, even then, failed to appear before OP. Reply to RTI application is also found filed and is considered as well.
This Commission also went through the rejoinder and it was noticed that the complainant has contended vehemently that the OP had never informed the complainant regarding allotment of flat and further stated that OP had never produced any documents/postal receipt which can prove to this effect that the OP had informed the complainant about the above allotment. The complainant in its written submissions has mentioned the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court incorporating the clipping of the some newspaper stating that it is the duty of DDA to keep allottee informed. This Commission also noticed the OP’s evidence whereby it was clearly mentioned that the complainant was duly informed about each stage, as the OP has exhibited these proof as Ex.OP-W1/1 to OP W-1/4 in seriatum.
Moreover, this Commission has also gone into the issue of limitation period. This complaint had been filed in 2010. We could see the letters of the complainant of 2008, 2009 & 2010 only. No correspondence seems to have been transacted between 1995 and 2008. In such circumstances, we have no option but to place reliance on the documents which have been evidenced by OP through its evidence in affidavit. The OP’s counsel mentioned the case of Ashok Kumar Sain Vs. DDA where the National Commission referred the case as decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries that “Section 24A of CP Act 1986 which prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint is peremptory in nature and requires forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action”.
The complainant also placed reliance on the case decided by Hon’ble High Court in the matter of Hridaya Pal Singh Vs. DDA where the appellant was not informed by DDA about the allotment of flat. The facts of this case seems more pari materea to the facts of that case of Haridaya Pal Singh.
This Commission has examined minutely the contentions/replies/material on record, submitted by both the parties. As far as time barring is concerned, the same is not applicable here as the complainant was not intimated about the allotted flat. Moreover, as is apparent from the record, the Demand-cum- allotment letter is purported to have been sent either on wrong address or not sent at all.
It may not be out of place to refer the order dated 27.5.2017 of this Commission whereby it is noted that the complainant had given his address as 242, DG Panchkuia Road, New Delhi and DAL was sent purportedly on the address of C/o D.R. Baweja, C-IV,39 Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The present address given by complainant is J-9, Top Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The complainant sent letter from J-9, top Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi to C/o Dr. D.R. Baweja, C-IV, 39 Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi to confirm his contention that the above address of Lajpat Nagar is genuine and the purported demand-cum-allotment was never sent to the said address. On this, the complainant vide his reply as well as during oral arguments had requested OP to produce any document evidencing this fact that the DAL was sent/issued to him. The OP could not produce any such evidence at any stage. The OP has tried to mislead this Commission by exhibiting the evidence as Ex OP w1/1 (c). The name of complainant is mentioned at 54075 where two addresses of the complainant are indicated. At the top of said evidence/photocopy of the page of some registers, the Despatch Register was written and thereafter “Despatch” is mutilated. The page seems to be receipt register where priority no. of the applications are given. The purpose of evidencing this page by the OP could not be understood. However, the same evidence confirmed the fact that the addresses of the complainant were on record. This goes to prove that the DAL was never sent to the complainant as contended by the complainant all through this period.
The complainant has advanced the copy of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Hirdaya Pal Singh Vs. DDA decided on 6.7.207, where it is observed that while it is certainly the obligation of such applicant to inform the DDA of change of address, there is also a corresponding obligation of the DDA to attempt to send the allotment letter to every possible address of the applicant that has been intimated to it and available on record “the Hon’ble Court further allowing the petition directed DDA to issue DAL and other relief as well”.
In the instant case, as stated by the counsel of the OP during oral arguments that the said scheme under which complainant applied, had been closed by DDA and relied upon the judgment of DDA Vs. Sunil Kr. Jain of Hon’ble High Court where it is held that the DDA (OP) had issued two Public Notices in 2004 & 2006 for the knowledge of registrants of NPRS 1979 Scheme about closure of scheme and further being the claim of respondent (complainant) and the same was rejected.
In view of above, it is very difficult to restore the claim of the complainant. But there is patent default on the part of officials of the OP not to produce any shred of evidence indicating that DAL was issued and thereof postal receipt/photocopy of Despatch Register could have been produced. Hence OP has failed miserably in proving its case. After considering all facts as discussed and keeping in view the material placed before us and there was grave error on the part of OP so much so this Commission was misled by putting such evidence in support of its case. Therefore, OP is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation within 3 months from the date of this order failing which the interest on the said amount of compensation shall be levied @ 9% p.a. till its realisation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
