DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.513/2012
Sh. Chander Prakash Gupta (Senior Citizen)
S/o Sh. Shanker Lal, 67 years
R/o Block-A/267, J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khader, Phase-II,
Kalindi Kunj Road,
New Delhi-110076 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice-Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA Market,
New Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 28.09.2012 Date of Order : 10.03.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Case of the complainant is that, he had applied for allotment of permanent stall/kiosk under the scheme floated by the OP and deposited the demanded amount at the time of filing the application for allotment of stall alongwith all the relevant slip/receipt. He was selected in the draw of lots held on 07.04.1998 by the OP for allotment of permanent specific vegetable stall bearing No.186, Chotti Subzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. The OP issued demand-cum-allotment letter dated 27.11.1998 in which the size of the stall was mentioned 5.76 sq. mtr. and the total cost of the stall was Rs.1,71,405/-. After issuing the demand letter, the OP had issued a letter dated 19.12.03 for handing over the possession of the unit measuring 5.76 sq. mtr. at Chotti Subzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar and OP issued a possession slip dated 07.01.04. It is submitted that he had deposited the initial amount/first installment for a sum of Rs.42852/- with the OP on 30.10.03 and rest of the balance was to be paid in four installments, each installment being of Rs.42439/-. The OP had not cleared filth/garbage and other obstacles around stall No.186, Ground Floor, Tilak Nagar, Chhoti Subzi Mandi which was allotted to the complainant but the OP had again sent a demand call letter dated 30.06.04. He was running from pillar to post and also ready to deposit the required amount but officials of the OP did not clear the obstacle around the above mentioned stall. He made several requests personally and visited the officials of the OP numerous times and each time the officials of the OP informed that they will clear all the obstacles from the allotted site but OP did not do so. The OP again issued the demand letter dated 24.11.08 for a sum of Rs.283742/- for total outstanding dues including restoration and other charges. He had applied in Penalty Relief Scheme, 2007 (in short, Scheme) floated by the OP for waiving of the penalty and interest. Therefore, the OP recalculated the outstanding dues and gave 25% rebate to him and he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.252960/- (due installment of Rs.128256/- plus penalty of Rs.124704/-) which he deposited through challan No.118823 on 24.11.11 vide DD No.273811 dated 24.11.11. He informed the OP regarding deposit of the above amount. It is submitted that he applied for the NOC for freehold of the above stall on 02.12.11. The OP demanded a sum of Rs.20538/- for NOC for freehold and he deposited the amount with challan No.10294011 on 02.12.11; that as the OP did not issue the NOC for freehold of the above stall he filed RTI on 16.12.11; that as the OP did not reply within 30 days he again filed RTI on 27.12.11. The OP did not furnish the information under the RTI Act within time and submitted the vague reply vide reply dated 27.12.11. On 09.04.2002 OP again raised an illegal, unjustified and arbitrary demand for a sum of Rs.30782/-. He moved applications dated 16.04.2002 under the RTI Act. On 07.05.12 OP replied the RTI application in a very vague manner and again raised an illegal and unjustified demand on 21.05.12 for a sum of Rs.166352/-. The complainant is a Sr. Citizen and has no other source of livelihood. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing the following directions to the OP:-
- to quash the illegal, unjustified and arbitrary demand raised for an amount of Rs.1,66,352/- dated 21.05.2012 on account of NOC for freehold of vegetable stall bearing No.186, Ground Floor, Chhoti Subzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi by the OP,
- to direct the OP to issue the NOC for the freehold for vegetable stall bearing No.186, Ground Floor, Chhoti Subzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi to the complainant,
- to direct the OP to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to the complainant,
- to direct the OP to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as cost of the litigation including the cost of the lawyer fees of Rs.25,000/- incurred by the complainant in contesting the case.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the “present complaint is commercial in nature, thus, dispute does not come within the ambit and jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act.” It is stated that a stall bearing No.186, Ground Floor, Chhoti Subzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi was allotted to the complainant and a demand letter dated 27.11.1998 was issued to him for depositing Rs.171405/- with the OP but the complainant instead of making the payment moved to the Hon’ble High Court and filed a Writ Petition No.312/1999 against the OP. The Hon’ble High Court directed the complainant to make the payment before 30.06.03 and further directed that the OP will not take interest from the complainant if he makes the payment before 30.06.03 and after that the complainant will have to give interest. But the complainant again filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court directed the complainant to apply in OP DDA for payment in installment and directed the OP to consider such representation. After the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the Vice-Chairman, DDA approved the request of the complainant and directed the complainant to deposit 25% before allotment and the remaining 75% in 3 quarterly installments. Accordingly, the complainant deposited 25% on account of cost of shop on 30.01.2003 and possession letter was issued to the complainant. There were similar cases placed before the OP and the authority in its meeting dated 11.03.04 vide resolution No.21/04 passed that 25% of the total amount would be taken as initial deposit before handing over the possession and remaining amount would be taken in half yearly installments working out by taking interest rate of 15% per annum on half yearly rate basis. However, before handing over the possession, allottee would be liable to give post dated cheques in respect of future installments but the complainant neither gave the post dated cheques nor deposited the further installments. It is denied that OP did not clear the filth, garbage and other obstacles around stall No.186. The complainant himself has filed the copy of the possession slip. The said possession slip does not find any protest of any nature. Therefore, the complainant has concocted a false story. It is submitted that as per report of Sr. AO (HAC), a demand letter dated 30.06.04 for Rs.7934/- was sent to the complainant with a request to submit 4 post dated cheques of Rs.4239/- each but the complainant did not make the payment even after several reminders dated 08.09.04, 06.12.04 and 20.04.06 and thereafter on 22.01.07 the allotment of the said stall was cancelled due to non-payment of installment but later on the competent authority vide circular No.F1 (6) 1986/IMPL/CE/713 dated 01.02.08 approved the restoration in the cases where allotment was cancelled due to non-payment and physical possession was still with the allottees subject to payment of balance premium, interest, restoration charges and other applicable charges. The competent authority restored the allotment of the stall in question subject to payment of the restoration charges @ 2.5% (self estimation of the said amount by the Complainant himself and suo moto deposting the same with the OP did not absolve him from his liability to pay the balance amount) of the current average rate of the concerned area; thereafter the OP vide letter dated 11.08.08 requested the complainant to deposit Rs.16127/- on account of restoration charges but the complainant failed to do so. Thereafter, the OP vide letter dated 24.11.08 requested the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.283742/- on account of “outstanding, interest on balance amount upto 30.12.08 and restoration charges” but the complainant again failed to deposit the same. On 02.12.11, the complainant applied for conversion from leasehold to freehold of the stall in question and deposited a sum of Rs.252960/- vide challan No.118823 on 25.11.11. The complainant (instead of depositing Rs.283742/-) deposited only Rs.252960/- and so again OP requested the complainant to deposit the balance amount but the complainant did not deposit the balance amount and informed the OP that he had deposited Rs.252960/- under the Penalty Relief Scheme, 2007 floated by the OP for waiving of the penalty and interest. It is submitted that the Penalty Relief Scheme, 2007 for waiving of the penalty and interest was for the flats of the DDA only and not for the shops and stalls. The Complainant has not filed any document to even show that his case had been considered under the Penalty Relief Scheme, 2007 and he was asked by the OP to deposit Rs.252960/-. It is denied that the OP had demanded a sum of Rs.30782/- illegally and arbitrarily. It is stated that when the complainant failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.30782/- even after several reminders, the OP requested their account branch to calculate the outstanding dues, ground rent, interest on ground rent, maintenance charges, cost of the shop and interest on cost of the shop. On 21.05.12 OP sent a letter to the complainant to deposit Rs.166352/- in reference to his application for conversion dated 02.12.11 but the complainant again did not deposit the same. It is submitted that OP gave reply to the RTI application to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant is a habitual litigant and in addition to litigation the complainant has also filed a suit No.1103/06 titled as Sh. Chander Prakash Gupta Vs. DDA and hence the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. S. N. Gupta, Director (RL) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties.
We have gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the complainant was allotted a stall bearing No.186, Ground Floor, Chotti Subzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and a demand letter dated 27.11.1998 was issued to the Complainant for depositing Rs.171405/- with the OP. The complainant filed a case before the Hon’ble High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court directed that the complainant had to make the payment before 30.06.03 and further directed that DDA OP will not take interest from the complainant if he makes the payment before 30.06.03 and after that the complainant will have to give interest (for the purposes of identification we mark the document as Annexure-A). The complainant did not make the payment till 30.06.03 as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. The OP on 22.01.07 cancelled the stall due to non-payment of the amount. The OP vide circular No.F1(6) 1986/IMPLCE/713 approved the restoration in cases where the allotment was cancelled due to non-payment and the physical possession was still with the allottee and requested the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.283742.00 (copy Ex. RW1/8). The complainant deposited Rs.252960/- instead of Rs.283742/-. The complainant did not deposit the balance amount of Rs.30,782/-. The OP floated a Penalty Relief Scheme by waving the penalty and interest for flats only and not for the shops and stalls.
It is evident from the record that the complainant was not covered under the Penalty Relief Scheme, 2007 and he had to deposit balance amount of Rs.30782/- but he failed to deposit the same. The OP on 21.05.12 wrote a letter to the complainant to deposit Rs.166352/- (copy AnnexureC-26) with reference to his application for conversion dated 02.12.11. As the complainant did not deposit the amount, he cannot take benefit of his own wrong/lapse. Hence, the complainant has failed to make out any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as the OP had charged the amount as per the terms and conditions of their policy. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint 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 10.03.17.
