DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.279/2014
SENIOR CITIZEN
(80 YEARS)
Col. Arur Chand Bassi (Retd.)
22, Devi Lotus, Bhau Patil Road, Pune
Maharashtra-41120
At present at Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
through its Chairman/Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
2. The Chairman/Vice-Chairman,
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution :17.07.2014 Date of Order :25.02.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
SH. N.K. GOEL, PRESIDENT
Complainant’s case, in short, is that he had made an application for a house under Expandable Housing Scheme, 1995 of the OP vide application No.048106 and deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- in cash vide application form on 28.02.1995. Subsequently a draw was held by the OP on 15.05.1995- 30.05.1995 (block dates) and he was declared successful and he was allotted a DDA flat in category Type-A vide flat No.1064 in pocket-3, Block-D, Dwarka (Bindapur). The demand-cum- allotment letter 14.05.1995 was issued by the OPs for the deposit of the amount in installments. He deposited first installment of Rs.31069/- as per demand letter dated 14.09.1995 in cash. Thereafter due to some unforeseen circumstances including his transfer being in Indian Army he could not deposit the balance payment with the OP. However, in the year 2011 a scheme, namely, Penalty Relief Scheme-2011 was floated by the OP whereby the defaulters were given a chance to deposit the entire payment of the flats alongwith the penalty for the condonation of delay in possession of the flats for the defaulters. He inquired from the OP and came to know that the aforesaid flat still exists in his name and the same was not cancelled/re-allotted. The complainant after making the necessary arrangement deposited a sum of Rs.670118/- i.e. “Rs.215750/- towards cost of the flat and Rs.454368/- as penalty charges” under the aforesaid Penalty Relief Scheme, 2011 and deposited the amount on 25.11.2011 and also deposited all the necessary documents on 29.11.11. The complainant received a letter/ no dues certificate dated 30.12.11 from the OP wherein it was mentioned that all the monthly installments had been received by the OP. He was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.151456/- as penalty which had been worked out on account of belated payment and directed to deposit the same on or before 31.01.12 and he deposited the same on 16.01.2012. No dues certificate was issued to him by the OP on 16.02.12. Thereafter he received a letter dated 22.03.12 from the OP directing him to deposit a sum of Rs.17340/- on account of service charges, restoration charges and late submission of the documents. After receipt of the aforesaid letter, he had deposited a sum of Rs.17340/- with OP on 27.03.12. Thereafter as he did not receive any response from the OP, he wrote a letter on 20.07.12. On 16.08.12 he was shocked to receive a letter from the OP that his case had been examined by the competent authority and the same could not be acceded to. He made a representation to the various officials of the OP regarding issuing the possession letter as he had already deposited the entire amount including the restoration charges. He also made a representation to the Lt. Governor on 30.01.2013 and 17.05.13 but no reply was received from the OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:
- Direct the OP to issue the possession letter to the complainant for the flat No.1064, Pocket-3, Block-D, Type-A in the locality Dwarka (Bindapur) allotted in his name immediately without any further delay,
- Direct the OP to pay the litigation charges and costs etc.
In the reply OP has inter-alia stated that complaint is time barred as the same has been filed beyond the period of two years of limitation as provided u/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is stated that flat No. 1064, block-B, Pocket-III, Type-A, Bindapur was allotted by the OP in favour of the complainant in the year 1995 against his application No. 0048106. The allotment was subject to terms and conditions as given in the brochure and also DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulations, 1968. Demand-cum- allotment letter dated 15/30.05.1995 was issued to the complainant with request to make payment as per the schedule mentioned therein. The allottee adopted the mode of payment of 6 installments. He paid Rs.31069/- on account of 1st installment vide challan No. 26231 dated 14.09.1995 against the due date 01.08.95. Possession letter was not issued to the complainant due to non-payment of remaining 5 installments within the stipulated period and stood cancelled as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. The complainant submitted a representation dated 16.08.11 (approximately after 16 years) stating therein that he could not make the payment due to financial constraints during service and further requested for consideration of his representation as he had served to the Nation. He applied of his own under DDA PRS- 2011 and further deposited Rs.151451/- vide No. 711762 dated 16.01.12 and submitted request letter for issuing possession letter of the aforesaid flat. He further submitted a challan of Rs.17340/- on 27.03.12. The letter dated 30.12.11 as well as letter dated 16.02.12 were issued by the Accounts Officer (H) DWK wherein it was specifically stated that the above No Due Certificate was “subjects to the following the flat has not been cancelled and further this is without prejudice to the rights of the DDA for action already taken/under process for violations, if any, of the allotment /Lease/Conveyance Deed etc.” The letter dated 30.12.11 as well as the letter dated 16.02.12 were inadvertently issued by the accounts officer (H) DWK as the Penalty Relief Scheme was not at all applicable in the present case due to the basic fact that the possession of the flat in question was not taken by the complainant. The matter was put up before the competent authority but the OP DDA regretted to say that the same cannot be acceded to. The letter dated 22.03.12 was inadvertently issued by the Asstt. Director (EHS) and the same be treated as withdrawn. The letter of regret was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 26.07.12. it is submitted that the case of the complainant does not come under the Penalty Relief Scheme as the complainant was not in possession of the flat and the case of the complainant is barred by delay and latches. The complainant is not entitled for allotment of flat; rather he may apply for refund of money deposited by him alongwith original documents. The Expandable Housing Scheme, 1995 has already been closed. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The Complainant has filed a rejoinder wherein he has inter-alia stated that as under :-
“….it is respectfully submitted that the OP has flouted Penalty Relief Scheme and the said scheme was also a Policy decision of the OP and the benefit of the said scheme is taken by the complainant and as such the OP is bound by their Policy Decision.”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. Affidavit of Sh. R. K. Malhotra, Director II (H) has been filed on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.
This is an admitted fact that after the issuance of the demand –cum-allotment letter for the block 15.05.1995 – 30.05.1995 the complainant deposited only first installment of Rs. 31069/- as per the demand letter dated 14.09.2005 and thereafter for any reason whatsoever the complainant did not deposit further installments till the year 2011. Thus, there were serious latches and delay on his part.
Now according to the complainant when the Penalty Relief Scheme 2011 floated by the OP in the year 2011 came in vogue he made the deposits as per the details given in the complaint and not denied by the OP. It is also not in dispute that the accounts branch of the OP had issued no dues certificate to the Complainant on two occasions as detailed hereinabove. However, the case of the OP in this regard is that these letters had been issued on behalf of the OP inadvertently and under any circumstances subject to the conditions that the flat /booking of the flat had not been cancelled and without prejudice to the rights of the OP DDA for action already taken /under process for the violation if any of the allotment /Lease/Conveyance Deed. The case of the OP is also that the said Penalty Relief Scheme 2011 was not applicable to the case of the Complainant inasmuch as he had not been issued the possession letter in respect of the flat in question till 2011 while the said scheme was applicable only to those persons who had already been allotted flats under the various schemes mentioned in the scheme.
The copy of the Penalty Relief Scheme 2011 has been filed on the record as exhibit OPW/1/3(colly). We have gone through the said scheme. The preface of the scheme inter-alia reads as under:-
“Flats under the General Housing Scheme and NPRS Scheme were allotted to a number of allottees on Hire Purchase Basis. It has been found that a number of allottees have not paid their Hire Purchase installment regularly”
Thus, the Scheme was applicable to those flats only possession of which had already been handed over by the OP to the allottees.
The eligibility criteria has been specified in Clause 5 which inter-alia provides that the scheme shall be eligible only to those allottees who shall make payment of the amounts alongwith the application. Therefore, the scheme had been made applicable to allottees only and to none else. On the date of the introduction of the said Scheme the Complainant was already in arrears of substantial amount of the allotment money as per the demand –cum-allotment letter dated 14.09.1995 for 16 years till the introduction of 2011 Scheme. He also had no correspondence with the OP and it seems that he was totally satisfied with the matter till 2011.
Communications made by officers of the OP on behalf of the OP may bind the OP with all the consequences that may follow after the issue of the letter. The Officer may or may not be authorized to communicate the letter on behalf of the OP. The letter may or may not be issued diligently or inadvertently. However, in our considered opinion, if the total circumstances of the case, if collected together, lead to a conclusion that such a letter had infact been issued (inadvertently) under no Scheme, the letter or the Scheme will not bind the OP. In our considered opinion, in such a contingency or situation, the OP shall be entitled to initiate strict and stern departmental action against the erring officer but the letter will not certainly bind the OP.
The copy of the letter dated 30.12.2011 bearing No.F 502(2161)95/EHS/BI/42 dated 30.12.2011 written by the Accounts Officer(H) Dwarka of the OP to the Complainant has been filed on the record whereby the complainant had been issued a no dues certificate with the following note:-
“NOTE
The above No dues Certificate subjects to the following the flat has not been cancelled and further this is without prejudice to the right of the DDA for action already taken /under process for violations , if any of the allotment /Lease /Conveyance Deed etc.
The flat is being used for residential purpose only .”
We mark the copy as Mark CC for the purposes of identification. Copy of the letter bearing No. F 502(2161)95/EHS/BI/189 dated 16.02.2012 has been filed on the record as exhibit CW1/G which also contains the same note. Therefore, the above stated two letters had been issued subject to the conditions stated therein. Similarly, letter No.5026 (2161)95/EH/BI/2033 dated 22.03.12 by the Asstt. Director (EHS) of the OP to the Complainant thereby asking the latter to deposit RS.17340/- under certain head was also perfectly unjustified. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant did not become entitled to fresh allotment of a flat after introduction of the Penalty Relief Scheme 2011 as the said Scheme did not apply to his case. Therefore, this is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is just entitled to the refund of his entire amount alongwith interest and not entitled to fresh allotment letter.
Therefore, we advise the complainant to apply for the refund amount alongwith necessary documents with the OP. Needless to say that the OP shall begin process of refunding the amount alongwith interest.
In view of the above discussion we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary (Housing) of the OP DDA who shall initiate departmental action against the concerned Accounts Officer (H) Dwarka and the Asstt. Director (EHS). The Principal Secretary (Housing) of the DDA shall also enquire into the matter whether on the date of issue of these letters to the Complainant on behalf of the OP, flat No.1064 Block D, Pocket 3, Type A, Bindapur had infact been not allotted to any one and lying vacant. If the flat was infact lying vacant, he shall consider the case of the Complainant and shall get the said flat allotted to the Complainant.
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 25.02.17.
