DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.471/08
1. Chani Ram (since deceased)
through his LRs
1(a) Smt. Kalawati Devi, Wife
2(b). Sh. Amit K Ram, Son
Both R/o
24, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029 ….Complainants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
(through its Vice Chairman)
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 25.07.08 Date of Order : 09.01.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant vide application No.034505 applied for allotment of a house under Expandable Housing Scheme, 1996 with the OP and deposited Rs.15,000/- vide demand draft No.147202 dated 09.10.1996 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, K.G. Marg, New Delhi; that he became successful in the draw held on 21.03.1997 and a type ‘B’ house, bearing No.487, Sector-4, Pocket-1, Narela, Delhi was allotted to him but no allotment/demand letter was issued to him; that in between he shifted his residence and vide letter dated 10.12.1999 the OP was requested to update his fresh address in their records which was confirmed by the OP vide letter dated 29.12.1999; that on 03.08.2000 when he visited the office of the OP for issuing allotment/demand letter, he was informed that the same had been sent to him long back i.e. in the month of January 2000; that he requested the concerned officials to provide dispatch details of the same and after verifying their records by the OP’s official it was confirmed that the said allotment/demand letter was wrongly sent by them on his previous address and that he was further informed that a fresh/duplicate allotment/demand letter will be issued and he would get the same within few days; that despite oral and written requests when OP failed to issue allotment/demand letter to him including on the ground that his file was not traceable, he sent a legal notice dated 16.01.2008 through his Advocate to the OP to issue the same but, however, the same was neither replied nor the OP issued the allotment/demand letter. Hence pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to issue allotment/demand letter, to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation for causing harassment, inconvenience, frustration, loss of professional practice, mental and physical agony etc. and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of conveyance, legal notice and other expenses to the complainant.
OP in the written statement has admitted that the complainant had made application under the said scheme vide application No.034505 and deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the registration money. OP has not denied that in the computerized draw held on 21.03.1997 the complainant was declared successful for allotment of flat No.487, Sector B-4, Pocket-1, Type-B, Group-1, Narela. It is, however, submitted that the demand-cum- allotment letter in the block 12.1.2000-20.1.2000 was sent to the complainant but however the same was sent to the complainant at his old address i.e. A-216, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. It is further submitted that certain demand letters were received back undelivered on account of change in the address of the registrants and as such a public notice was published in the daily newspaper i.e. Nav Bharat Times dated 05.02.2000. According to the OP, the complainant neither contacted the OP within the said stipulated period as published in the newspaper nor deposited the money within the stipulated period. It is further stated that the flat which was allotted to the complainant has already been allotted to Delhi Police and presently no flat is lying vacant and, therefore, no flat can be allotted to the complainant. It is stated that the competent authority further took a lenient view and has decided that if any flat of Type B in Narela is cancelled on the request of the allottee under the DDA Housing Scheme, 2008 the said flat may be offered to the complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. S. K. Jain, Director (H-II) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
Complainant died during the pendency of the complaint and his LRs have been substituted in his place.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainants and have also gone through the material placed before us.
In our considered opinion, the matter does not require any lengthy discussion. The averments made by the complainant in the complaint and affidavit that vide his letter dated 10.12.99 he had intimated about the change of his address to the OP and that the same was confirmed by the OP to him vide OP’s letter dated 29.12.99 are not denied and are thus deemed to be admitted. According to the OP, the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the complainant on his old address. It is not the case of the OP that demand-cum-allotment letter had ever been issued to the complainant at his newly intimated address. Was it not the legal duty of the OP to send the demand-cum-allotment letter to the complainant on his newly intimated address? Certainly. However, the OP did not do so for the best reasons known to its officers/officials and they deprived a legally entitled person from allotment of a residential apartment/flat. The deceased complainant had been deprived from the allotment of the flat by the callous, indifferent and harsh attitude of the officials of the OP. Mere publication of a general notice in a newspaper is of no assistance to the OP. The facts of the case hoarsely demonstrate the manner in which the officials of the OP sometimes act in a very highhandedness, nepotism manner and in a manner as if they are the final authority in the matters and allottees are totally dependent on their mercy. The innocent complainant could not get possession of a flat which was allotted to him by the OP in the draw held on 21.03.97 only because of the highhandedness of the officials of the OP. When he had not got any relief from the office of the OP he filed the present complaint and ultimately left for his heavenly abode on 22.02.2013 with an empty hope of getting a favourable verdict by this Forum in his favour. Therefore, it is a case of highhandedness and gross deficiency in service on the part of the officials of the OP.
Nothing has been placed on the record on behalf of the OP to even show that the complainant or after his death his LRs has/ have ever been offered any allotment of flat in DDA Housing Scheme , 2008 as pleaded by the OP.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we hold the OP guilty of gross deficiency in service. We direct the OP to include the names of LRs of the complainant in the next draw to be held by the OP in respect of Type B House( MIG House) in any locality subject to the LRs of complainant filing an affidavit to the effect that they do not have any flat allotted in their separate names by the OP DDA. If any DDA flat is found allotted in the name of one of two LRs. of the deceased complainant, the flat shall be allotted by the OP in the name of remaining LR. In case, neither of them has been allotted any flat by OP DDA, then the flat shall be allotted to them in their joint names. OP shall allot a MIG Flat to the LRs/LR of the complainant on the costs prevalent on 25.07.08 (date of filing of the complaint). The OP shall not be entitled to claim any interest on the amount to be charged towards the allotment of the flat. Since the complainant himself has died we do not award any compensation for mental pain and agony. Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.
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 09.01.17.
