DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.38/15
Krishna Devi
R/o A-1/358, 2nd Floor
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
(Through her SPA Shri B.K. Bharti)
….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority,
Through Administrative Director,
Commissioner (Housing) LIG, DDA,
Dy. Director (Housing) LIG, DDA,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,
New Delhi
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 04.02.2015
Date of Order : 25.05.2022
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 for the sum of Rs.1,99,418/- in her favour alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim upto the date of finalization and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the grave mental pain.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a shop bearing No. 3-313, Service Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi on 3rd Oct. 1997 from the original allottee, namely, Shri Surinder Kumar Mehto vide registered WILL, General Power of Attorney alongwith other documents i.e. Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter and receipts etc. On 19.10.2012, the complainant had applied for conversion of her above-quoted property from lease-hold to free-hold and deposited Rs.158,830/- alongwith other requisite documents before DDA (hereinafter referred to as OP). The complainant had received a demand Call Letter dated 22.2.2013 for deposition of Rs.33033/- as balance of conversion charges. The Banker Cheque dated 2.3.2013 was deposited with OP. There was no mention of ground rent, interest on maintenance charges and misuse charges, the photocopy of said cheque etc. is exhibited as Annexure C-1 to C-6 (Colly).
The complainant sent a reminder dated 6.6.2013 to the Commissioner (Land) & Dy. Director (Commercial Estate). An application under RTI dated 19.7.2013 was made to ascertain the exact status of his file. The complainant has alleged that OP sent very strange reply. The same are annexed as annexure-E-1 to E-8 (Colly). The complainant also got issued notice u/s 80 CPC on 21.8.2013. Reply to this was received but again very strange. On direction of OP, the complainant had furnished details of payment of ground rent, maintenance charges etc. on 18.12.2013. The same are annexed as Annexures G-1 to G-6 (Colly).
The complainant had received another demand Call Letter dated 1.01.2013 (01.01.2014) for Rs. 132004/- on 10.1.2014 on account of ground rent, maintenance charge alongwith interest thereon. Thus complainant had further deposited Rs.135000/- (132004+2996 ex.gratia) vide Pay Order No. 00479 dated 11.1.2014. This amount was deposited under protest alongwith covering letter dated 15.1.2014. Complainant again received another demand call letter dated 7.3.2014 in which the OP had claimed Rs.6079/- as an interest on alleged delayed payment. In compliance of above, amount of Rs.6100/- was deposited on vide DD No.152301 dated 13.3.2014. The same are annexed as annexure I-1 to I-6 (Colly). On further inquiry, three electricity bill of the premises were deposited in the office of OP on 20.5.2014.
Complainant was to visit USA so she executed SPA in favour of his elder son, namely, B.K. Bharti and same was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar.
On instruction of OP, an amount of Rs.7685/- for transfer duty, Stamp Duty and CC fee deposited with Treasury vide TR 6 on 28.7.2014. She had submitted three copies of duly stamped Conveyance Deed and one copy of TR 6 with the office of OP. The complainant had received a letter dated 28.8.2014, which was dispatched on 16.9.2014 vide which the complainant was asked to appear in the office of OP on 8.9.2014 at 1.00 PM for execution of Conveyance Deed. Once again it is proved the negligence of OP in issuing and dispatching the letter on 16.9.2014 and to appear on 8.9.2014. The same are annexed as Annexures M-1 to M-2. As such, new date i.e. 10.10.2014 was sought through authorized representative. When Shri B.K. Bharti, SPA holder reached the office of OP, he was asked to produce occupancy proof. The SPA produced the MCD property tax receipt. The same was not accepted instead insisted on production of electricity bills in her name for same premises. However, bills under the name of earlier lease holder were submitted with OP on 20.5.2014. As such, the complainant with great difficulty got the electricity connection in her name. At last, the needful was done and said property got converted into free-hold.
The complainant asserted that as per Citizen Charter and admission of OP in its reply to RTI application, the prescribed limit for conversion is 90 days. The complainant, in brief mentioned that she had applied for conversion on 19.10.2012 and deposited an amount of Rs. 158,830/- on the same date later on 33010/- on 2.3.2013, as balance conversion charges and had completed all formalities on 2.3.2013. It was also alleged that the OP had wrongly charged Rs.141,100/- extra from the complainant.
It was alleged that the above narration is clear cut case of deficiency in service as defined in section 2 (g) of C. P. Act, 1986. The complainant had requested to allow the refund of Rs.1,99,418/- which is sum total of amount of Rs. 135000/-and various interest thereof @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposition till the date of execution of CD.
The OP on the other hand, had taken some preliminary objections/submissions such as:-
- The complaint was time barred under Section 24A of the CP Act 1986 and further supported by the judgment in the case of Kerala Agro Vs. Bijoy Kumar 2022 (3) SCC 165.
- Complainant is not covered u/s 2(1) (d) and 2(1) (O) of the C P Act 1986.
Further the property in question was allotted in auction to Shri Surinder Kumar. The OP accepted some of the facts such as deposition of amount alongwith other requisite documents.
Both the parties filed written submissions and evidence in affidavit. Written statements is on record so is rejoinder. Arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the material placed on record. Arguments so advanced were also taken into account. As regards to raising the objection on the question of maintainability of complaint by OP under Section 24A of C.P. Act, it has been examined with respect to the facts of the case and Conveyance Deed was executed on 17.10.2014, and the complaint is filed in 2015 therefore, OP’s objection on the above is disposed of. The complaint is also covered under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as she has challenged the deficiency in service provided during the execution of Conveyance Deed. Hence this point of OP is also found devoid of merit. The case of complainant Centred around two point i.e. firstly the OP took unnecessary/unwarranted long period of two years in conversion of the property in question whereas the period of completion for such work in Citizen Charter as well as reply to the RTI application by OP is 90 days. This long period of two years undoubtedly can be termed as unwarranted which leads to deficiency of service. It is also noticed that some of the notices have different dates on letters and different dates of dispatch, resultantly, these letters were received much later by the complainant. It vividly amounts to harassment. It was also noticed that the amounts so demanded from the complainant was in piece meal. It could have been avoided and undue delay to some extent would have been avoided.
Secondly, the Commission finds that the OP has not mentioned in its written statement about the amount of Rs.158,830/- which was paid vide Banker Cheque No. 193464 dated 12.10.2012 drawn on SBI. The same was deposited along with Challan No. CE/2010 02954 dated 19.1.212 in addition to the requisite documents on 19.1.2012 for conversion of property. The same are exhibited in her affidavit of evidence as Ext. CW-1/B-1 to CW-1/B-5 (Colly). Further, the OP demanded Rs.132014/- vide its Demand Call letter dated as 1.1.2013 (wrongly) it might be 1.01.2014 as it bears the postal stamps of 1.1.2014 on account of ground rent, maintenance charges alongwith interest thereon. The complainant deposited Rs.135000/- vide Pay Order No.000479 dated 11.1.2014. This amount is duly acknowledged by OP in its reply. It is also noted that the complainant deposited this amount under protest. The same are exhibited here Ext-CW1/H-I, CW-1/H-2, CW-1/H-4 to CW-1/H-6 through its evidence in affidavit. The OP did not respond specifically to the complainant’s deposition of Rs.1,35,000/-under protest.
his Commission has gone into the details so provided minutely by the parties and arrive at a decision that the complainant has been charged an additional amount of Rs.1,35,000/- as contended by complainant in its complaint and same was not rebutted by OP and no mention was found about the deposition of Rs.1,58,830/- in the written statement of OP or elswhere. As such, there is no doubt that both the amount so mentioned above deposited for ground rent and maintenance charges. It is observed that interest was also charged on various delayed payments. Whereas actual delay was committed by the officials of the OP. This Commission is convinced that there is high degree of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP. Hence, it is directed that OP shall refund the excess amount so deposited to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- alongwith interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposition till the date of realisation. The other demand of interest of the complainant is not allowed. The above amount should be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which rate of interest shall be charged @ 10% p.a. till its realisation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
