DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 19/2008
Sh. B.K. Arora & Ors,
Son of Late Sh. Tharia lal,
Both R/o Flat No. AN-32-B,
Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi-110088. ……Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA Market,
New Delhi - 110029. ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.01.2008 Date of Order : 29.12.2015
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The question involved in the present complaint is whether the OP is liable to pay the amounts claimed in the complaint to the complainant.
The complaint is with regard to the allotment of flat No. 64-A, Pocket U&V, Block-B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide allotment letter dated 27.7.84 for a total price of Rs. 96,800/- allotted to one Sh. B.B. Sarna who deposited Rs. 20,000/- on 6.8.84 and Rs. 53,800/- on 27.8.84 respectively and the balance payment of Rs. 43,000/- with interest was required to be paid in 84 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 680.95. However, he sold the said flat to Smt. Ganeshi Bai under Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, ‘will’ and other documents favouring S/Sh. B.K. Arora, Raj Kumar and O.P. Arora on 14.7.86. Smt. Ganeshi Bai sold the said flat to the complainant and his two brothers on 19.6.2002. According to the averments made in the complaint, after making the payment of Rs. 73,800/- allottee was required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 30,595.75 i.e. Rs. 23,000/- as principal balance amount plus Rs. 7,595.75 towards interest thereon payable in 84 equal monthly installments @ Rs. 364.25. The original allottee had also deposited some amount with the OP in lumpsum but the receipt could not be located and he did not deposit the monthly installments from 1.9.84 till July ’86 towards the cost of the flat when the flat was sold by him to Smt. Ganeshi Bai on 14.7.86.
According to the further averments made in the complaint, on 18.7.86, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 8,377.75 was deposited by the complainant/GPA in the bank towards the arrears of 23 monthly instalments from 1.9.84 to July 1986 @ Rs. 364.25 in the name of Sh. B.B. Sarna, being the original allottee and the complainant/GPA continued to deposit monthly instalments of Rs. 364.25 from 1.8.86 till Feb. 1990 (43 instalments). Thereafter the complainant approached the OP and demanded the balance due amount of instalments but the OP did not provide the same and hence the complainant/GPA stopped depositing monthly instalments as he was under the impression that there was no dues against him/her as the receipt of a lumpsum amount deposited by the original allottee had not been located by him. Nothing was heard from the DDA/OP till Jan 1994 but on 28.1.94 Nazul (Collector) DDA issued a hand delivered notice to the GPA/complainant thereby demanding Rs. 19,748.55 as arrears of dues without having any statement of account. The complainant replied the said notice on 8.2.94 stating that the full payment of the said flat had been made and if any amount was outstanding the same be intimated for payment with statement of account. Thereafter despite many representations OP did not send any recalculation but after recalculation of accounts on the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant, a representative of OP met the complainant on 20.5.1994 and demanded an amount of Rs. 4,371/- towards full and final cost with interest etc. which was made by the complainant through Pay order dated 20.5.1994. Thereafter on 29.9.2005 complainant submitted one Penalty Relief Scheme (PRS) application to OP with a view to obtaining ‘No Dues Certificate’ for conversion of the flat in question from leasehold to freehold and its mutation in the name of the complainant and his two brothers. On 30.3.2006, the OP verbally made available to the complainant rough estimate of Rs. 55,000/- to be deposited before 31.3.2006 to enable the complainant to avail benefits under the PRS and the complainant paid the said amount to the OP on 31.3.2006. It is stated that on 8.9.06 the complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 1088/- towards ground rent and service charges without giving any details of adjustment of Rs. 55,000/-. The amount of Rs. 1088/- was deposited by the complainant and the flat in question was converted into freehold in the name of the complainant and his two brothers. In July/August 2007, complainants were provided with accounting details of Rs. 55,000/- supplied after repeated reminders and it was found that a sum of Rs. 10,839.48 was lying with the OP which could have been adjusted against the payment of Rs. 1088/- but the same was not done and this is one of the greatest deficiencies on the part of the OP. The complainant has further stated that he is a limping senior citizen and cruel of the cruelest treatment has been provided to him by the officers/officials of the OP. After making serious allegations of corruption against the officers/officials of the OP, the complainant has prayed as under:
- direct the OP to refund Rs. 55,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.4.2006 till final payment,
- direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the mental pain and agony, harassment, torture, damage to the reputation and image of a limping senior citizen who can be sighted from a distance and financial losses caused to him, and
- direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
In the written statement, the OP has inter-alia stated that the allottee was required to make the payment of monthly installments @ Rs. 680.95 and not at Rs. 364.25 and the complainant has not submitted any documentary evidence/proof in support of his contention that the rate of monthly installments was reduced as Rs. 364.25 instead of Rs. 680.95. It is further submitted that the complainant at his own calculation had deposited an amount of Rs. 55,000/- by different challans vide Challan No. 667124 dated 31.3.06 for Rs. 45,000/-, and Challan No. 116868 dated 31.3.06 for Rs. 10,000/- to avail the benefit under PRS as 31.3.06 was the last day of the scheme and it was to be closed w.e.f. 1.4.06. It is submitted that as provided under para 5(d) of PRS-2001, “If the allottee has already deposited amount of penalty as per original terms of the scheme or earlier penalty relief scheme and penalty under this scheme is less than the amount deposited no refund will be given and amount deposited will be treated as penalty” and hence according to this para excess deposit on account of penalty was not refundable. So far as the amount of Rs. 1088/- is concerned, it was payable by the complainant on account of Cap. Ground Rent and Service charges. It is stated that due to non-receipt of balance cost and interest on the flat from the complainant, the dues could not be finalized and the same were deposited by the complainant on 31.3.06. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder running in 10 pages wherein he has inter-alia stated that monthly installments were required to be paid @ 364.25 and that the complainant in the absence of information/documents was unable to calculate the balance payment, if any, to be made to the DDA. It is further stated as under:
“One letter was submitted to DDA on 27.1.06 (Annex.-AA-1) to know balance dues. Again on 30.1.06 (Annex. A-2) one letter was delivered to Clerk of VMN against Dy. No. 130 to know balance dues. After going through this letter, VMN gave me estimated figure of Rs. 55,000/- to be deposited by 31.3.06 stated that he was unable to calculate balance dues during last six months and would finalize matter within one month of deposit of Rs. 55,000/-.”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. O.P. Gupta, Director (H) I has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
It is not out of place to mention here that during the course of arguments on 23.3.15 the complainant stated before the Forum that he has already sold out the flat in question to someone else by executing the Sale Deed in his favour. He was accordingly directed to file the copy of Sale Deed. Complainant has accordingly filed a copy of Sale Deed on 22.4.15.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Parties.
We have heard the counsels for the parties and have also carefully perused the record.
As per the averments made in the complaint itself, the balance payment of Rs. 43,000/- along with interest was required to be paid in 84 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 680.95. No documentary proof of deposit of any amount by the original allottee in lumpsum as pleaded in the complaint has been filed on the record. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof we do not believe that the original allottee had also deposited some amount with the OP in lumpsum. According to the complainant, he had deposited Rs. 8,377.75 towards arrears of 23 monthly instalments from 1.9.84 to July 1986 @ Rs. 364.25 in the name of the original allottee. When the amount of instalment was of Rs. 680.95, how did the complainant himself come to the conclusion or draw any inference that the monthly instalment to be deposited was Rs. 364.25 and not Rs. 680.95.
It is not the case of the complainant that he had deposited Rs. 55,000/- under any pressure. He himself deposited amount of Rs. 55,000/- because the Penalty Relief Scheme (PRS) was going to be closed w.e.f. 1st April, 2006 and the last date to avail the benefit under the PRS was 31.3.2006. This is not in dispute that amount of Rs. 1088/- was deposited by the complainant towards ground rent and service charges.
The complainant himself was responsible for miscalculating the amount. It was for the original allottee or for that purpose the complainant himself to calculate the amount which had to be paid to the OP towards balance amount. It was not the duty of the OP/DDA to recalculate the amount time and again and send the same to the complainant for deposit. Therefore, the original allottee or for the aforesaid purpose the complainant was himself responsible for delayed payment. We cannot hold the OP/DDA guilty for deficiency in service in this regard.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it 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.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 29.12.15.
29.12.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
