DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.359/06
Col.D. Pratap
R/o 444,Sector 29,
Noida, U.P
Pin Code : 201303
….Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman, DDA.
Self Financing Scheme,
‘D’ block, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A
New Delhi
2. H.D.F.C. Ltd.
The Capital Court building,
Munirka, Olof Palme Marg,
New Delhi-110067.
……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 05.07.06 Date of Order : 05.11.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
The case of the Complainant which is not disputed by the OP No.1 in nutshell is that the Complainant booked a flat under SFS scheme for category- II and deposited Rs.10,000/- as registration money in the year 1985. The Complainant sought change of category-II to category III and deposited the difference. The Complainant was allotted a flat at an estimated cost of Rs.7,50,000/- on 20.03.1995/30.03.1995 and allotted flat in Sector 12, Pocket-III, Dwarka, New Delhi. He deposited the first installment on 05.10.1996 but the OP cancelled the allotment vide letter dated 11.01.1996 stating that the first installment was not paid in time. He had submitted the copy of the challan on 31.03.1996. Allotment was restored by charging Rs.45,750/- as cancellation restoration charges vide letter dated 23.01.02. The belated interest due to deferment on account of delay in construction has been allowed only on Rs.37,500/- w.e.f. 05.10.96 amounting to Rs.9370/- and paid only Rs.1535/- vide DDA letter dated 15.04.02 and 04.12.02 (annexed), whereas the belated interest should have been paid on full amount of Rs.6,75,000/- deposited by the Complainant for 8 years and 9 months delay in giving the flat. It is stated as follows:
“(13). That on 29.12.2003, the Flat was finally handed over by the JE, Electricity Div. No.2, Sec. 5 Dwarke to Col. D. Pratap on 29.12.2003 after some of the unfinished work was completed.”
Some deficiencies were/ and are still subsisting in the flat allotted to him.
The Complainant made all the payment in third and fourth installment by taking loan from OP No.2. Para 18 of the complaint reads as under:
“(18). That on 20.06.2003 Col. D. Pratap wrote a letter to H.D.F.C. Ltd. enclosing above DDA letter dated 22.04.03 asking them to make up the loss of belated construction interest and cancellation restoration charges as the same was due to a delay in issuing their cheque on 2.2.11 and not before 30.01.01 as requested in earlier letter dated 25.01.2001. It is gross neglect and deficiency in service on the part of H.D.F.C. Ltd. In addition H.D.F.C. Ltd. is building up pressure by increasing the interest on loan vide their letters dated 23.9.03, 5.6.04 & 19.6.06. All letters are annexed as Annexure-N (Colly).”
The Complainant submitted all the documents to the OP and the OP issued a possession letter to the Complainant on 20.12.02. The OP registered the conveyance deed on 04.07.03. Hence, this complaint for the following reliefs:
“(a) There is no delay in payment of installment of installments by the Complainant to DDA/Resp. No.1. The cancellation of allotment vide letter dated 11.01.1996 was wrongly done as the first installment was paid in time. Rs. 45,750.00 levied by the DDA/Resp. No. 1 for restoration of cancellation should be refunded by the DDA/Resp. No.1 to the complainant along with Interest as per brochure.
(b) Belated construction interest approximately Rs. 3,20,000/- should be paid to the complainant by DDA/Resp. No. 1, as per brochure, for delay of 8 years and 9 month in construction of Flat and delay in handing over the flat as late as on 29.12.2003. The Flat still has some deficiencies, which is a great deficiency is service on the part of DDA/ Resp. No. 1 DDA/Resp. No. 1 has already sanctioned Rs. 9370/- and paid Rs. 1535/- as belated interest as per para no.5 above , which is only a part justice hence, full justice may kindly be done by paying the balance amount.
(c) There is no delay in third installment payment as full amount was deposited before time. The delay if any as per DDA/Resp. No. 1 (about one day ,only for fourth installment) is not on the part of Complainant as the cheque given by H.D.F.C Ltd./ No. 2, in favor of DDA/Resp. No. 1, was not issued before the due date suggested by the Complainant which is a direct deficiency in rendering requisite service on the part of H.D.F.C. Ltd/Resp. No. 1. Hence , any loss levied by the DDA/Resp. No. 1 (Rs.3,20, 000/- belated interest not paid and Rs. 45,750/- restoration charges ) should be made up by H.D.F.C Ltd./Resp. Nos. 2.
(d) Token compensation of rupees five lacks for the deficiencies left in the Flat by the DDA/Resp. No. 1m delay in payment, if any by H.D.F.C Ltd./Resp. No. 2, mental harassment , mental agony and defamation in the Society may please be paid by each respondent i. e the DDA/Resp. No.1 and H.D.F.C Ltd./Resp. No.2.”
OP No.1 in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the Complainant is estopped in law as the Complainant approached this Forum for payment of belated construction interest and restoration charges. The Complainant had already taken the possession of the flat in the year 2002 and after securing the possession wants to wriggle out from the concluded contract and the Complainant almost after 4 years of the possession has filed this complaint therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. OP No.1 has requested to dismiss the complaint.
OP No.2 has stated that “ it is submitted that Complainant had executed the Loan Agreement, Promissory Note etc on February 02, 2011 accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- was disbursed on Feb 02, 2001 pertaining to Loan account no 449207 / HDFC File no 380564.” It is further stated that “ It is pertinent to mention here that Loan amount was disbursed on 02 Feb 2001 after all the formalities were duly, completed by the Complainant and his wife. Hence there is neither any delay nor any deficiency of service, on part of the answering respondent.” It is also stated that “ It is pertinent to mention herein that Complainant had himself executed and signed the Loan Agreement and the Promissory Note for Rs 2,70,000/- on February 02, 2001 therefore if there was any delay, as alleged, that was on account of the Complainant and his wife themself.” It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed separate rejoinders to the written statement of OPs.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar, Director OP No.1 and affidavit of Sh. Girish Bhatia, General Manager of OP No.2 have been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.1 & 2 respectively.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is evident from the records and the discussion held with the parties that the Complainant was allotted a house on 20.12.02 and the Complainant took the possession of the flat. The conveyance deed was executed on 04.07.03. The Complainant filed the present complaint on 05.07.06 i.e. after more than 3 years. As the Complainant had already taken the possession and conveyance deed executed in his favour without any protest from his side he is not a “Consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Secondly, the present complaint was filed after more than 3 years and, hence, the complaint is barred by limitation. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint on the above two grounds.
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 05.11.2016.
