DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.400/2014
Sh. Brij Mohan Marwah (Senior Citizen
R/o S-12, Sahyog Apartments, 79 years old)
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice-Chairman
INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 22.10.14 Date of Order : 11.09.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
According to the complainant, he had purchased a flat No. S-12, Sahyog Apartments, Sector-9. Rohini Delhi in a Triangular Mutual Exchange with flat No.T1 from the Society’s Executive Committee by the seller Sh. Chander Mohan on 16.01.1991. He applied for conversion of the flat from leasehold to freehold alongwith all the required documents including the prevailing fee of Rs.25,200/-. After about one month the OP informed him that since his flat was triangularly mutually exchanged, it cannot be made freehold till the much expected policy already in the pipeline comes into force. He was asked to wait and as he wanted his flat to be converted from leasehold to freehold he did not ask the OP DDA to refund the amount of Rs.25,200/-. On 03.05.11 he received a letter from the OP inter-alia asking him to pay Rs.25,000/- as mutual exchange charges and that he had been informed vide letter dated 19.08.03 that his application/file had been rejected because he had not completed the OP’s requirement made vide letters dated 15.05.01, 02.02.02 and 22.05.03. Keeping in view his old age he was constrained to follow the illegitimate or legitimate demand of the OP and deposited Rs.45,000/- and Rs.1,05,000/- vide letter dated 01.12.11 by thinking that he will raise the question of legal interest on the amount of Rs.25,200/- later on which, if invested in any scheme, would have become Rs.108000/- in 12 years by 2012. According to him, mutual exchange charges were not applicable to his case but he had to deposit the same. Conveyance Deed in respect of the flat was executed by the OP DDA in his favour on 05.03.14. According to him, he is now entitled to refund of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.1,05,000/- wrongly charged without any locus-standi by the OP. According to the complainant, the OP violated the terms and conditions of the contract documents of the brochure in the following manner:-
“a. DDA violated terms & condition of ‘Contract Document of Brochure’ by binding it with the extraneous illegal claim which, had it been possible could have enforced legally on the society or myself immediately after knowing of Mutual Exchange of flat done in 1991.
b. DDA applied PROSPECTUS policy guidelines dt. 4.10.1995 RETROSPECTIVELY in my case of mutual exchange of flats done on 16.1.1991.
c. DDA used my Rs.25200/- throughout from 24.12.1999 to 15.5.2013, maintaining my file no.F-5 (2910)GH/2000 till the execution of conveyance deed on 05.3.2014 but this file was rejected/lost/not traceable/and re-appeared to be dealt only if Rs.45000/- and Rs.1,05,000/- is paid.
d. DDA did not pay interest on my Rs.25,200/- from 24.12.1999 to 5.3.2013 not provided its policy justifying rejection of my repeated logical/legal demand of INTEREST ON Rs.25200/-.
e. DDA committed serious fault, imperfection, shortcoming, and inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of performance in providing service based on CONTRACT VIDE BROCHURE DOCUMENT during very long period of 14.54 years from 24.12.199 to 5.3.2014 to inflict constant tension and mental agony leading to abnormal deterioration of my health.”
Prayer of the complainant is to issue the following directions to the OP:-
“1. Refund me Mutual Exchange Charges extravagantly
charged with 10% interest p.a. Rs. 45,000/-
2. Refund difference of hiked freehold fee
charged with 10% interest p.a. Rs.1,05,000/-
3. Litigation Charges Rs. 25000/-
4. Compensation for harassment and mental
agony I suffered during 14.5 years Rs.3,00,00/-”
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that after having obtained conversion of his flat from leasehold to freehold on payment of requisite charges after execution of a Conveyance Deed on 05.03.14 the complainant is now estopped in law from seeking refund of the charges which were paid to the OP as condition precedent of payment. According to the OP, it was noticed that the following flats were mutually exchanged without DDA’s permission:
S.No. | Name of Member | Membership No. | Flat allotted | Exchanged with |
1. | Chander Mohan | 204 | T-1 | S-12(A) |
2. | Sanjay Mehta | 423 | S-12 | V-4 |
3. | Ramesh Kumar Arora | 269 | V-4 | T-1 |
It is stated that the complainant had not disclosed that the flat in question had been allotted to Sh. Sanjay Mehta and the same was sold out to Chander Mohan and vide letter dated 15.05.01 the complainant was asked to clarify the position. Reminders were sent to the complainant to clarify the position vide letters dated 02.08.02 and 27.05.03 but he failed to clarify the position and hence his application for conversion was rejected on 10.09.03. It is stated that as per policy of mutual exchange of flats if the flat is exchanged with the higher category after one year a sum of Rs.45000/- is chargeable to regularize exchange of the flat; that the complainant deposited the exchanged charges to get the flat converted from leasehold to freehold as per policy and he is now estopped in law from seeking a refund of the same. It is submitted that after rejection of the first application the complainant submitted a fresh application on 15.05.13 and paid the balance conversion charges. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has not filed a rejoinder.
He has filed his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Vipin Ahuja, Director (RL) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant.
We have heard the complainant in person and the counsel for the OP and have also gone through the record very carefully.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the flat in question in a Triangular Mutual Exchange. It is not in dispute that his earlier application for conversion of the said flat from leasehold to freehold had been dismissed by the OP DDA on 10.09.03. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the complainant alongwith previous application was not refunded to him. Rather, it was the complainant himself who had not withdrawn the said amount only because he did not want refund of the said amount and just wanted the flat in question to be converted from leasehold to freehold. Therefore, it was the voluntary deposit of Rs.25,000/- by the complainant with the OP. Therefore, in our considered opinion, he is not legally entitled to claim any interest on any such amount from the OP. Secondly, in the affidavit the complainant has reduced his demand of Rs.105000/- to Rs.72650/. Without going into much detail we observe that the complainant after deposing the amount with the OP got his flat converted from leasehold to freehold. He had availed the services of the OP by depositing the money as per the demand raised by the OP. There is no material on the record to show that the complainant had made the payment under protest. Therefore, as soon as the flat stood converted from leasehold to freehold in his favour, he ceased to be a ‘consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and, hence, the present complaint does not disclose any consume dispute. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
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.
Announced on 11.09.17.
