CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM II
Udyog Sadan C 22 & 23 Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi 110016.
Case No.528/2009
Sh. Jagat Singh
S/o Late Sh. Inder Singh
House No.93 Phase II
Prem Nagar Nazafgarh
New Delhi 110043 ……Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan I.N.A.
New Delhi ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 02.07.09 Date of Order : 21.10. 15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel President
Ms. Naina Bakshi Member
O R D E R
Facts are that in pursuance of the registration made by the Complainant with the OP for allotment of a flat under the New pattern Residential Scheme 1979 (in short NPRS) his name was registered vide registration No.14535 and priority No.16640. In 1994 the OP allotted a flat No.69 Pocket 13 Phase III Rohini Delhi to the Complainant vide allotment letter No.MO24 (2440) 94/RO/NP. The flat allotted to the applicant was incremental flat and was not a regular flat. All the allottees/applicants filed their objections. The allottees/applicants filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and thereafter on the directions of the Delhi High Court as well as Supreme Court OP passed an office order dated 23.03.95 and took a policy decision to allot regular MIG flats to the applicants. As per policy decision dated 23.05.95 the OP held a draw of regular MIG flats in 1995 but his name was not included in the draw and accordingly he reported the matter to the OP vide his letter dated 20.12.95 which was duly received by the OP. During 1995 2004 he visited the office of the Director (MIG) and Commissioner (Housing) DDA OP number of times with the request to include his name in draw and also wrote many letters to the OP. OP held many draws of regular MIG flats but surprisingly his name was not included in the draws. OP held last draw on 31.03.2004 and declared that regular MIG flat scheme has expired. He reported the matter to the OP vide his letters dated 26.04.2004 05.08.04 02.12.04. After running from pillar to post the OP held a draw on 29.08.05 including his name and he was allotted a flat bearing No.15 3rd Floor Pocket I Sector 19 Dwarka New Delhi. Subsequently OP issued an allotment/demand letter dated 12.06.05 (sic) to deposit Rs.9 47 723/ towards the cost of the flat. He visited the office of OP and they informed that new rates have been charged instead of the price of priority covered amount i.e. Rs.4 45 350/ . He further came to know that the OP also did not adjust the amount of Rs.20 000/ paid on 09.06.94 alongwith 18% interest. According to the Complainant the Asstt. Director of OP DDA and other senior officials had approved the allotment of the MIG flat to him at the prevailing cost of February 1994 which was apparent from DDA processing file and order dated 24.01.05 (wherein) the cost of the prevalent price of February 1994 was calculated by the OP which comes out to be Rs.5 05 5000/ which includes interest of Rs.77 761/ . Despite their own calculation and order the OP directed him to pay Rs.9 47 723/ as he was having no option but to deposit Rs.9 74 723/ with the OP on 08.09.06 under protest. Thereafter he approached the OP numerous times with the request to refund the excess amount and to adjust Rs.20 000/ but to no avail inspite of receipt of letters dated 02.03.06 28.0906 01.12.06 16.01.07 19.02.07 & 14.05.09. After making the payment of Rs.9 74 723/ he visited the allotted flat at Dwarka and found that OP did not complete the flat as the fittings were not complete and he lodged his objection with the OP vide letter dated 08.01.07 & 09.01.07. Para No.11 of the complaint reads as under:
11. That the opposite party is guilty of gross malpractices and of restoring to unfair trade practices as well as deficiency of services in that they have unfairly and without any reason or legal justification whatsoever failed to refund the excess amount of Rs.5 16 830/ along with 18% interest inspite of office order at page 39/N. That OP is further liable to refund Rs.20 000/ along with 18% interest on Rs.9 74 723/ @ 18% for delayed possession of the flat in question.
Hence pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP the Complainant has prayed as under:
- Direct the OP to refund the amount mentioned in para No.11 of the complaint.
- Direct the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.1 50 000/ for financial loss physical harassment undergone by the Complainant and Rs.20 000/ towards cost of litigation.
In the written statement OP has inter alia stated that Shri Jagat Singh/Complainant vide application No.444 dated 20.09.79 had got himself registered for the allotment of MIG flat under NPRS 1979 by depositing the registration money and he was issued a priority No.16640 against the registration No.14535. Complainant was declared successful for the allotment of EHS flat No.69 Sector 24 Pkt.13 Phase III in Rohini on hire purchase basis through the computerized draw held on 03.02.94 with the request to deposit the demanded cost of the flat as per the schedule mentioned therein. The last date of making the payment (with interest) was 06.08.94. In response to the allotment letter he deposited an amount of Rs.20 000/ as confirmation amount on 09.06.94 and stated that he was not interested in the incremental flat and requested for a regular flat. His request was examined and acceded to by the competent authority vide order dated 26.08.05. Thereafter he was allotted a regular MIG flat No.15 third floor Sector 19 Pkt.I Dwarka on cash down basis through the computerized draw held on 29.08.05. Thereafter the case file was sent to the Finance Wing (Housing) OP DDA to work out the cost of the flat and after that the demand cum allotment letter was sent to the Complainant on 12.06.06 with request to deposit the cost of Rs.9 62 179/ by 10.09.06. The last date of payment was 09.12.06. Complainant deposited the cost of the flat i.e. Rs.9 62 179/ vide challan No.97820 dated 08.09.2006 and furnished the required documents alongwith third copy of the bank challan. On receipt of demanded payment and documents the possession of the flat was issued to the Complainant on 07.11.06 and the possession of the flat No.15 third floor Sector 19 Pkt. I Dwarka was taken by the Complainant 23.11.06 on the request of the Complainant the conveyance deed was executed in favour of the Complainant on 06.12.2006. After execution of conveyance deed the Complainant vide letter dated 19.02.07 requested for excess of Rs.20 000/ in lieu of earlier expandable flat No. 69 Sector 24 Pkt.13 Phase III Rohini and in response OP DDA requested the Complainant to submit the original 4th copy of bank challan and also submit bank account detail but he failed to do so. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement submitted by the OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. O. P. Gupta Director (H 1) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. Arguments on behalf of the parties are heard.
We straightway come to the question whether the excess charges of the MIG flat allotted to the Complainant by the OP was justified and if so whether the Complainant is not entitled to any relief?
Documents have not been exhibited by the Complainant as per the Exhibit Nos. given to them in the affidavit of the Complainant.
Facts are not in dispute. The Complainant was allotted EHS flat No.69 Sector 24 Pkt. 13 Phase III in Rohini on hire purchase basis through draw held on 03.02.94. Demand–cum allotment letter was issued to him in May 1994 with request to deposit the demanded cost of the flat as per schedule mentioned therein. The Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.20 000/ as confirmation amount on 09.06.94 and he informed the OP that he was not interested in the incremental flat and requested for a regular flat. The request was accepted and vide letter dated 26.08.05 he was allotted a regular MIG flat No.15 3rd floor Sector 19 Pkt 1 Dwarka on cash down basis with a request to deposit the cost of Rs.962 179/ . He had deposited the cost of the flat Rs.962179/ (according to OP and Rs.974723/ according to the Complainant) vide challan No. 97820 dated 08.09.06. After that he was issued possession letter on 07.11.06. Conveyance deed in respect of the flat was executed in his favour on 06.12.06. After execution of the conveyance deed the Complainant vide letter dated 19.02.07 requested the OP for refund of excess amount of Rs.20 000/ in lieu of earlier expandable flat No. 69 Sector 24 Pkt. 13 Phase III Rohini. The Complainant has filed the copy of the noting of OP DDA (Annexure K at page No.38) the relevant portion reads as under:
The allottee met the undersigned in the public hearing and submitted photocopies of relevant documents which show that he was continuously in touch with the DDA regarding relief. I have also discussed this case with Sr. Law Officer (H) and he was also of the view that in this case the DDA is at fault. In view of above we may charge old cost + 7% interest as the fault is on the part of the DDA.
(Asma Manzar)
Commissioner (Housing)
Rates have been calculated at page No.48 & 49 as follows:
The old cost in r/o flat No.15 Sector 19 Pkt. I T.F. Dwarka prevailing the period 8/94 is worked out as under
Plinth area of flat 84 58 sq. mtr.
3.02
Cost of Constr @ 3188.72 269702
9630
279332
Community facility 750/
280082 –
Floor equalisation charges ( ) 5602 –
274480
Deptt. charges @ 10% 27448
301928 –
Admin charges @ 1% 3019 –
304947
Int. 17% for 18 M 77761
382708 –
Land premium 122700
505408
245100 X 1695
3387 say Rs.5 05 500/=
Necessary conversion charges and other charges may be added by Housing as per Housing Policy.
It is very true that OP did not issue demand–cum allotment letter dated 12.06.06 on the basis of old cost of the flat calculated on the page No.48 & 49 and as recommended by Commissioner (H) and demand–cum allotment letter was issued to the Complainant at the prevailing cost of Rs.9 74 723/ . It is an admitted fact that the Complainant deposited the amount as per demand–cum allotment letter dated 12.06.06. However according to the Complainant he had deposited the said amount under protest. If the Complainant had deposited the amount as per demand–cum allotment letter dated 12.06.06 under protest then he will become entitled for the reliefs prayed for otherwise not? It is an admitted fact that a Conveyance Deed in respect of the flat had been executed in favour of the complainant by the OP on 06.12.06. Complainant has not mentioned this important fact in the complaint. In order to show that the Complainant had made the payment as per demand–cum allotment letter dated 12.06.06 under protest the Complainant has relied on his letters dated 02.03.06 28.09.06 01.12.06 16.01.07 19.02.07 & 14.05.07 (Annexure M Colly). Annexure M (Colly) runs from page No.58 to 61. It inter alia contains two copies of the letters dated 08.01.07 wherein Complainant had made a request to OP to get the pending work in the flat in question completed. He did not make any request regarding charging excess amount from OP. Copies of no other letters stated in the complaint or affidavit of the Complainant have been filed. Therefore in the absence of copies of other letters filed on the record we have no occasion to go though the same and hence not in a position to know that the Complainant had infact deposited the amount as per demand–cum allotment letter under protest. Therefore though OP was totally unjustified in raising higher demand of Rs.9 74 723 or Rs.9 62 179/ from the Complainant the Complainant ceased to be a consumer as soon as he deposited the entire amount as per demand cum allotment letter dated 12.06.06.
In view of the above discussion we are constrained to hold that Complainant has failed to raise any consumer dispute. 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 21.10.15.
(Naina bakshi) (N.K. Goel) member president
