DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.278/2016
Dr. (Mrs.) Padma jain
D/o Shri O. S. Dewan
Through Her S. P. A, Dr. A. K. Dewan
R/o Flat No. 311, Malviya Apartments,
Plot No. 7, Mayur Vihar, Phase- I,
Delhi- 91
….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through Its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 30.08.2016
Date of Order : 29.03.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U. K. Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award (i) to refund the principal amount of Rs.2,65,912/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from 02.11.2015 till date; (ii) Compensation equivalent to the interest on the FDR of Rs.15,000/- which was deposited initially on 02.08.1982 which comes to Rs.2,50,912/-;
(iii) further compensation of Rs.8,58,153.42/- which is equivalent to the 18 months interest @18% p.a. on the total cost of flat i.e. Rs.31,78,346/- deposited by the Complainant on 20.10.2014 whereas the execution of conveyance deed was done on 01.07.2016; (iv) And compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency in service and mental harassment etc.
Brief facts leading to the case are that Dr. (Mrs.) Padma Jain R/o 2/44 Subhash Nagar, New Delhi got herself registered on having deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- under Vth SFS 1982. DDA (hereinafter referred to as OP) invited applications for the above category in 1993. She was allotted a Duplex flat in Peera Garhi in the draw held on 20.03.1993. She requested for cancellation of aforesaid allocation vide letter dated 30.06.1993. Thereafter, on her request, OP allotted a SFS, Category III, flat at Kondli Gharoli. She again requested for cancellation. After a gap of 5 years, she requested for restoration of allotment. Her case was placed before Grievance Redressal Committee in 2000 and said committee recommended for restoration of allotment. As such, her name was included in the draw held on 07.03.2000. She was allotted a flat No. 37/C
Pkt. A, Sector-G at Kondli Gharoli.
A complaint case no.253/10 was filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Padma Jain through Dr. A.K. Dewan on 21.04.2010 and decided on 23.10.2010 in the District Consumer Forum-II directing the OP to issue demand-cum-allotment letter in r/o above mentioned flat at the prevalent rate as on 27.10.2007 and also pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony etc.
The DDA challenged the above order in the State Commission and National Commission. Both the Commission upheld the order of District Forum and dismissed the RPs in the matter. National Commission imposed the cost of Rs.25,000/-. Ultimately, DDA filed SLP in the Hon’ble Apex Court. The same SLP was dismissed. DAL was issued on 19.08.2014 in r/o allotted flat no. 37/C Pkt. A Sector-G at Kondli Gharoli. The costing of flat was arrived at by DDA to the tune of Rs.31,78,346/- wherein a sum of Rs.15,000/- deposited in form of FDR on 02.08.1982 has been shown included. The OP raised a demand of Rs.2,65,915/- on the pretext that the complainant had withdrawn the registration fees of Rs.15,000/-. The Complainant deposited the said amount on 02.11.2015 under protest and also deposited a sum of Rs.1,59,701/- as requisite stamp duty payable on conveyance deed. The physical possession was given on 03.06.2016 and thereafter the conveyance deed of the same flat was executed on 01.07.2016.
On the other hand, the OP has admitted most of the factual things but raised preliminary objections as under :-
- The complaint deserve to be rejected on pecuniary jurisdiction alone.
- The OP is not covered under the definition of consumer and hence, cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.
- The complaint is liable for rejection in terms of judgment in the case of DDA V/s Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs.) and anr. – (2003) 7 SCC 301, the Supreme Court held that DDA is a creature of Statute and, therefore, the policy decision or guidelines formulated by DDA, have a binding effect.
- The case is liable for rejection as being time barred under Consumer Protection Act.
- Reliance is also placed upon the judgement of Sushil Kumar Sharma V/s DDA RP No. 1128/2006 dated 08.04.2010 where it was held that after taking the possession of a house, the Complainant/allottee could not be heard to repudiate a part of transaction.
OP also mentioned the observation of Audit Party Report to this effect that the photographs pasted on initial allocation application dated 11.11.1993 is different from the application submitted on 03.01.1994. The later application also indicates different postal address and her date of birth is indicated 28.02.1945. Photographs do not seem matching with each other. The photograph of later application gives impression of young woman. Signatures on both the applications seem different. Hence, a number of letters dated 15.05.2000, 09.04.2001 and 08.04.2000 were sent with the request to attend the OP’s office so as to enable the OP to put at rest the observations of the Audit Party. But she did not report to the office of OP. Only in 2004, a letter was received. A writ petition No.4888/2005 was also filed and dismissed in 2006. Thereafter a complaint was filed in 2010 in this District Forum as stated above.
Both the parties have filed evidence in affidavits and written submissions. Rejoinder is on record so is the written statement. Arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the material on record as well as pleadings of the respective parties. The moot points in the complaint appear around the charging of the interest on the payments made by the complainants and the alleged refund of Registration amount of Rs.40,741/- vide cheque no.45541 dated 29.10.1999. As regard to delay in possession of the flat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed to allot the same flat and cost was also imposed on the OP. The OP has successfully led the evidence of payment of Rs.2,65,912/- and Rs.40,741/- by way of adducing the photocopy of the calculation sheet for Rs.2,65,912/- and encashment - documents i.e. Cash book/cheque, encashment register, reconciliation register which indicate the issuance of cheque no.45541 and encashment of same from OP’s a/c on 04.02.2000. The Complainant has denied the receipt of such amount generally but no specific onus of counter evidence was discharged. The photocopy of the note-sheet on the subject on which refund of Rs.40,741/- was dealt and certification of Sr. AO of the OP is also adduced which further confirms that refund for earlier deposition of Rs.15,000/- in 1982 alongwith interest has been granted. The OP also adduced some photocopies of letters sent to the Complainant requesting her to attend the office of the OP for proper identification/verification of genuineness before case is processed further. It seems that case remained pending for a long period. No correspondence is seen between 2006 to 2010. No specific explanation was given by the Complainant for executing the SPA. Even this complaint has been filed by SPA himself. To this extent, OP’s stand for verification of genuineness of documents seem correct.
This Commission also notes that the OP has specifically requested interest @18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.2,65,912/- deposited on 02.11.2015 but we don’t intend to go with the claim of complainant on this score as the OP has successfully evidenced by adducing the documents vide which refund of Rs.40,741/- has been shown granted. In the absence of specific counter- evidence by the Complainant, this part of interest @18% p.a. on the deposition of amount of Rs.31,78,346/- on 20.10.2014 and execution of conveyance deed on 01.07.2016, neither of the party has given the time frame for giving possession/execution on the conveyance deed on having deposited the dues/demand as per DAL. The Complainant should have given copy of citizen charter which usually gives time frame for disposal of such activity/applications.
In view of facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that the prayer of the Complainant indicated at (a) (b) is rejected entirely in the absence of specific counter-evidence of the Complainant. As regards to prayer at clause ‘c’ the Commission directs OP to look into the matter with respect to time-frame given in citizen charter or any other document being OP creature of statute. If any delay is committed, the same may be dealt as per policy/guidelines of the OP. If interest is payable it may be levied only @6% p.a. The prayer at (d) (e) & (f) is already been dealt and cost was also imposed, hence, these are rejected.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
