ORDER

31.05.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. Brief facts of the present case are that complainant applied for resident plot in the Housing Scheme floated by DDA OP1 about three decades above and accepted the allotment of residential plot no.123, Pkt. 21, Sector-24, Rohini New Delhi, measuring 60 sq. mtrs vide file no. P-25(1756)/91. It is stated that complainant paid full amount as demanded in the allotment letter and perpetual lease deed was executed by the President of India through DDA in favor of complainant on 17.09.2004 and same was registered in the office of Sub Registrar on 21.09.2004.
2. It is stated that Joint Director (Building) Rohini/Narela DDA having office at Sec. 3, Rohini issued a letter to complainant dated 08.01.2009 and demanded Rs.97,249/- for the grant of sanction for erection of building/construction work/building permit fees. It is further stated that complainant complied and deposited Rs.97,249/- with the DDA and submitted bank challan and demand draft dated 05.02.2009 in favor of Secretary Delhi Building and Construction Worker Welfare Board issued by HDFC bank. Deer Park Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. It is stated that OP1 never issued sanction of building plan to the complainant.
3. It is stated that after three years OP informed that North Delhi Municipal Corporation OP2 will issue sanction letter of building plan. It is further stated that complainant approached OP2 for sanction of building plan who redemanded Rs.93,000/- for sanction of building plan. It is stated that complainant had no other option but to accept  illegal and unjustified demand of OP2 and deposited Rs.93,000/- on 31.12.2012 through bank draft in favor of Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation. It is stated that OP2 vide letter dated 31.12.2012 issued sanction letter to complainant for construction of building on the above said plot.
4. It is stated that hard earned money of 97,249/- of the complainant remained with DDA and despite constant numerous follow up, personal visit and correspondence same has not been refunded. It is stated that offences committed by OP1 and OP2 in the nature of breach of contract/tort are continuation in nature as per provision of section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is stated that complainant is loosing interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.97,249/- from 05.02.2009 due to illegal holding by  OP1 and OP2. It is further stated that OP1 and OP2 have been causing material discomfort, mental agony, unbearable trauma, wastage of time and substantial financial loss.
5. It is stated that demand notice dated 26.11.2018 sent to OP1 and OP2 through speed post but no reply received thereafter another demand notice sent dated 04.12.2018 and 05.12.2018. The complainant has filed copy of letter dated 21.10.2011 addressed to Deputy Director Rohini (LAB) DDA, original letter dated 16.03.2017 addressed to Executive Engineer (Building) II MCD Rohini, copy of letter dated 17.03.2017 with acknowledgment Deputy Director Rohini (LAB) DDA, copy of letter dated 27.07.2017 to Deputy Director Residence Building Section Vikas Sadan INA with original acknowledgment, copy of application dated 15.06.2018 under RTI Act to Assistant Director LAB Rohini, with original receipt, copy of application dated 17.06.2018 under RTI with original receipt to AD/LAB Rohini, copy of first appeal dated 20.07.2018 under RTI Act to Joint Director (LAB) Rohini, DDA with original acknowledgment, copy of first appeal dated 09.08.2018 under RTI Act to Deputy Director (Building) DDA, Rohini alongwith original acknowledgment, copy of letter dated 06.08.2018 to Commissioner CIC with original postal receipt and delivery proof, copy of second appeal dated 10.09.2018 to the Commissioner CIC alongwith three original postal receipts and delivery proof, copy of second appeal dated 18.09.2018 to CIC with three original postal receipts and delivery proof, copy of application dated 16.08.2018 under RTI Act to Deputy Commissioner MCD, Rohini with original postal receipts and delivery proof, copy of reply dated 17.09.2018, original letter dated 25.10.2016 from NDMC to RTI, original letter dated 27.11.2018 received from NDMC, copy of demand notice dated 26.11.2017 to DDA through speed post on 29.11.2017 alongwith original postal receipts and delivery proof, copy of demand notice dated 26.11.2017 to NDMC through speed post on 29.11.2017 alongwith original receipt and return envelope, copy of demand notice dated 26.11.2017 to NDMC through speed post on 04.12.2018 alongwith original postal receipts and delivery proof.
6. The complainant is seeking refund  of Rs.97,249/- alongwith 18% interest from the date of payment 05.02.2009 till realization, direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of trauma, mental agony and substantial financial loss and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
7. Notice of the complaint sent to OP1 and 2. As per record OP1 served on 11.09.2019 and OP2 on 08.12.2019 and at second address on 11.02.2019.As per order dated 08.07.2019 both OP1 and 2 proceeded ex parte and also failed to file WS.
8. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit of CW1 Sh. Anil Sharma GPA holder. In the affidavit contents of complaint are reiterated. The complainant relied on copy of letter dated 08.01.2009 of DDA wherein demand of Rs.97,249/- was made as Annexure A1,  copy of demand draft dated 05.02.2009 of Rs.80,334/- and challan no.1427 Ex. Annexure A2-A3, copy of demand draft of Rs.16,915/- dated 05.02.2009 and challan Annexure A4, demand draft in favour of NDMC dated 17.12.2012 and receipt dated 31.12.2012 Ex. Annexure A5-A6, letter dated 31.12.2012 of issuance of sanction building plan A7, copy of letter to DDA dated 21.10.2011 Ex. Annexure A8, original letter dated 16.03.2017 to MCD Rohini Annexure A9, copy of letter dated 17.03.2017 with acknowledgment Deputy Director Rohini (LAB) DDA Ex. copy of letter dated 17.03.2017 with acknowledgment Deputy Director Rohini (LAB) DDA Annexure A10-A11, copy of letter dated 24.07.2017 to Deputy Director Residence Building Section Vikas Sadan with acknowledgment A12-A13, copy of application dated 15.06.2018 under RTI Act to Assistant Director LAB Rohini Annexure A14-A16, copy of application dated 27.06.2018 under RTI with original receipt to AD/LAB Rohini Annexure A17-A22, copy of first appeal dated 20.07.2018 under RTI Act to Joint Director (LAB) Rohini, DDA with original acknowledgment Annexure A23-A25, copy of first appeal dated 09.08.2018 under RTI Act to Deputy Director (Building) DDA, Rohini alongwith original acknowledgment Annexure A26-A27, copy of letter dated 06.08.2018 to Commissioner CIC with original postal receipt and delivery proof Annexure A28-A29, copy of second appeal dated 10.09.2018 to the Commissioner CIC alongwith three original postal receipts and delivery proof Annexure A30-A50, copy of second appeal dated 18.09.2018 to CIC with three original postal receipts and delivery proof Annexure A51-A69, copy of application dated 16.08.2018 under RTI Act to Deputy Commissioner MCD, Rohini with original postal receipts and delivery proof Annexure A70-A72, copy of reply dated 17.09.2018, original letter dated 25.10.2016 from NDMC to RTI Annexure A73, original letter dated 25.10.2016 from NDMC to RTI Annexure A74-75, original letter dated 27.11.2018 received from NDMC Annexure A76-A77, copy of demand notice dated 26.11.2017 to DDA through speed post on 29.11.2017 alongwith original postal receipts and delivery proof Annexure A78-A82, copy of demand notice dated 26.11.2017 to NDMC through speed post on 29.11.2017 alongwith original receipt and return envelope Annexure A83-A88 and copy of demand notice dated 26.11.2017 to NDMC through speed post on 04.12.2018 alongwith original postal receipts and delivery proof Annexure A89-A93.
9. Written arguments filed by complainant.
10. We have heard Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma Attorney on behalf of complainant and perused the record.
11. The complainant has  filed present complaint through her attorney sh. Anil Kumar Sharma as complainant was residing at 3310, Harrison Road Ames, IA 50010, USA. We have perused the record. A general power of attorney dated 07.01.2019 filed on record. This attorney is executed by Sh. Arvind gupta S/o Sh. Megh Raj Gupta Resident of B-7/7 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi who claimed to be attorney holder of Mrs. Arti Gupta complainant. The said Arvind Gupta further authorized Anil Sharma to file the present complaint on behalf of complainant Arti Gupta and also authorized to sign the complaint, aduce the evidence, a photocopy of general power of attorney executed by Arti Gupta in favor of Arvind Gupta executed at USA dated 19.10.2015 filed on record. We have gone through the attorney executed by complainant Arti Gupta. As per this attorney Arti Gupta delegated the powers to her brother Meghraj Gupta, however it does not give further powers to subdelegate through further general power of attorney to Anil Kumar Sharma. In these circumstances the general power of attorney executed by Arvind Gupta S/o Meghraj Gupta  in favor of Anil Sharma has no legal sanctity or legal authority to file the present complaint and adduce evidence on behalf of complainant Arti Gupta. Sh. Anil Sharma is not legal authorized power of attorney holder of complainant, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable. The general power of attorney dated 07.01.2019 has legal sanctity in the eyes of law.
12. It is admitted in the complaint that firstly the cause of action arose on 05.02.2009 when Rs. 97,249/- was deposited by complainant with DDA. Thereafter, further cause of action arose on 31.12.2012 when MCD issued sanction letter. Thereafter complainant did not take any legal step. The complainant wrote letters in the year 2017 after five years and also filed RTI applications and demand notice in the year 2018 are not substantial cause of action. The section 22 of Limitation Act has no role to play. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides the limitation for filing the complaint. According to section 24 A the limitation provided for filing complaint is within two years from which date the cause of action has arisen. In the present case the cause of action arisen in the year 2012. The present complaint filed on 04.02.2019 after expiry of about five  years of limitation period of two years. The complainant also not shown sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed two years of limitation period, therefore, present complaint is barred by limitation.
13. On the basis of above  observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.  
14. 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  31.05.2024.

     SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER