DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.402/2009
Dr. Ramesh Kumar Saksena
6035/C-6, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070 ….Complainant
Versus
Vice Chairman
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi-110023 …...Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 13.05.2009 Date of Order : 25.04.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that the complainant applied for allotment of flat under Fifth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982 by depositing Rs.15,000/- as security vide receipt No.11052 dated 14.08.1982. It is submitted that the complainant could not got the allotment under the said scheme. Hence, he again applied in 1991 for allotment of DDA flat vide Ref. No.174/(710)94/SFS/DW/III/62 in his name and he was allotted a flat but, however, the same was not acceptable to the complainant and he asked for refund of the security money of Rs.15,000/- alongwith the interest. He made several visits to the office of the OP for refund of security deposit alongwith interest and also wrote a letter on 31.10.04. When no reply was received he wrote a letter ion 19.09.08 to the Vice Chairman of the OP requesting for refund of the security amount alongwith interest but the OP failed to refund the said money alongwith interest despite passing of 26 years. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing the following directions to the OP:-
i. to make the payment of Rs.15,000/- alongwith compound interest @ 18% w.e.f. 13.08.1982 to the complainant,
ii. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and mental agony,
iii. to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.
OP in the written has inter-alia stated that the complaint is liable for rejection on the ground that it is time barred U/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted that the complainant got registered under Vth SFS vide receipt No.11053 on 14.08.1982. The complainant applied 5 times for the allocation of SFS flat but he could not be succeeded in getting the allotment. He has not deposited the cancellation charges in respect of 4 allotment made by him. After getting a request for refund of registration money a letter was sent to him on 23.10.01 and reminder dated 04.01.2002 to furnish the details in respect of depositing the cancellation charges /surrendering allocation so that the refund could be processed but no response was received from the complainant and a letter was sent to him on 15.03.02 conveying that his request has been examined and now nothing is refundable to him. As a draw for allotment of the flat was held on 14.11.1990 and the complainant was allotted a CAT III SFS flat on first floor, Block-G, Kondli Gharoli, the allocation letter was issued to the complainant in the block dates of 26.11.1990-30.11.1990. The allocation was not acceptable to him and hence he deposited Rs.1500/- on account of cancellation charges to keep his registration intact as per policy prevalent on that time. He further applied for allocation of flat vide application No.13756. A draw for allocation of the flat was held on 06.12.1991 and again allotted a CAT III SFS flat on 2nd floor, Block-5, Dwarka. The allocation letter was issued to him in the block dates of 26.12.1991-31.12.1991. No cancelation charges was deposited by him in respect of his allocation. A letter regarding cancellation was issued on 16.12.1992. The complainant further applied for allocation vide application No.011517. A draw was held on 23.03.1993 and allotted CAT III SFS flat on ground floor in block
12, Pkt-2, Dwarka. The allocation letter was issued on 26.03.1993 and 31.03.93. The complainant further applied for allocation of the flat vide application No. 4465 and he again allotted a flat in block 3, Pkt-II, 3rd floor, Dwarka, the allotment letter was issued to him on 10.03.94-15-03-94. As per the calculation of the account the total amount registration + interest comes to Rs.16537. The complainant has not deposited surrender/cancellation charges in respect of 4 allocations. Hence, an amount of Rs.,5000/- deducted per allocation. The total amount was to be taken from the complainant comes to Rs.20,000/-. Hence, now nothing is refundable to him. It is submitted that on 15.03.02 it was informed to the complainant that his request has been examined by the finance department of OP and nothing is refundable to him. It is stated that an amount of Rs.3463/- was recoverable from the complainant on account of cancellation charges in respect of allocation made to the complainant. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder. It is stated as follows:-
“ that the complainant applied for five times however, in the subsequent application he had not deposited any earnest money despite that, the application made by the complainant was accepted and the allotment was made in his favour, which itself shows that the complainant was not liable to pay any cancellation charges, if it is not so, the application of the complainant should had been rejected because after deducting cancellation charges after first allotment, the amount left with the OP is not sufficient to honour subsequent earnest charge.”
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. O. P. Gupta, Director (H-I) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have head the arguments on behalf of the OP and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had applied 5 times for allotment of a flat and he was successful in getting the flat in all the times. The complainant himself did not accept the allotment. Hence, as per the DDA rules and regulations the complainant was liable to pay the surrender/cancellation charges. As per the Surrender/ cancellation charges he/she shall have to pay penalty equal to 10% of the registration deposit. As the complainant deposited Rs.1500/- once as surrender/cancellation charges but in 4 surrender/cancellation he failed to deposit the same. Hence, the OP had deducted the surrender/cancellation charges as per the terms and conditions of the Self Financing Scheme of OP. the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Secondly, the complaint is also time barred. 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 25.04.17.
