DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.34/2017
Kushal Singh Rawat
S/o Sh. Gokal Singh Rawat
R/o 42/1, Sector-1,
Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi-110017
….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman:
Head Office:
Vikas Sadan,
Behind INA Market
New Delhi-110023
Also at:
LIG Housing Wing,
Vikas Sadan,
Block-D
2nd Floor,
Room No.221,
INA, New Delhi-110023
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 24.01.2017
Date of Order : 07.10.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Keshav Kumar along with complainant.
Adv. Neeraj Aggarwal for OP.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put, complainant applied for a flat in the Housing Scheme of Delhi Development Authority (DDA), hereinafter referred to as OP.
2. It is stated that complainant in the month of October, 2014 paid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to OP at the time of booking of flat in ‘General Category’. OP allotted a flat bearing no.37, Pocket-3, Block F15, Sector G8, LIG, Narela, Delhi to the complainant in the reserved category ‘Scheduled Cast’ instead of General Category. In this respect a demand letter dated 19.01.2015 was issued by OP in favour of the complainant.
3. Complainant made several calls and visited OP to inform that he has been allotted a flat in the wrong category. It is stated that one of the employees of OP asked him to make the payment in accordance with the demand letter, otherwise complainant will have to pay excess penalty for the late payment of the said flat. Complainant obtained a loan of Rs.8,50,000/- on interest from various sources and withdrew sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from his General Provident Fund to make payment to OP. It is stated that complainant had paid sum of Rs.12,54,474/- on 20.04.2015 to OP. Thereafter OP asked the complainant to pay stamp duty for a sum of Rs.58,775/- which was also paid by the complainant.
4. It is next stated that OP on account of the allotment under wrong category sent a letter dated 13.04.2016 to the complainant to apply for refund of registration money/initial costs deposited along with original documents. Complainant was completely shocked on receiving the said letter as complainant had paid huge interest for the loan obtained by him and after expiry of around fourteen months, OP refused to allot any or said flat to the complainant.
5. It is next stated that vide memorandum/refund voucher dated 02.11.2016 Office of Collector of Stamps through SDM intimated that amount of Rs.5,900/- has been deducted out of Rs.58,775/- and rest of the amount i.e Rs.52,875/- will be refunded to the complainant .
6. It is stated that OP deposited Rs.13,54,474/- to Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited with the consent of the complainant. As the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited, it refunded Rs.9,18,794/- on 01.06.2016 to the complainant after deducting the interest amount on the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- provided to the complainant.
7. It is stated that complainant suffered on account of the interest paid on the loan taken and also the money withdrawn from his General Provident Fund which cannot be deposited again in his GPF account.
8. Alleging deficiency of service complainant prays for direction to OP to refund interest amount and other expanses to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the loan obtained with interest @24% p.a and also to direct to OP to pay Rs.8,00,000/- towards damages, inconvenience, stress and huge monetary loss along with the costs of present complaint.
9. OP resisted the complaint stating interalia that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that after encashment of refund money that too without cancellation charges complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. OP has placed its reliance on Delhi Development Authority Vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney and another (2003) 7 SCC 301 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that DDA is the creature of statute and therefore, the policy decision or guidelines formulated by DDA have binding effect.
10. It is further stated that the complainant was allotted a flat under ‘SC’ category in the computerized draw on 25.11.2014. Thereafter Complainant deposited the amount as per DAL and also submitted documents with request to issue possession letter on 19.05.2015. It is next stated that complainant was issued Conveyance Deed on 19.05.2015 to get it stamped. OP received a letter on 04.11.2015 from the office of Director General of Naval Armament Inspection, IHQ of MoD (Navy) intimating that complainant has been allotted under ‘SC’ Category however, he belongs to ‘General Category’.
11. The matter was examined and considered by the competent authority of OP and was found that complainant was not entitled for the said allotment. Accordingly, cancellation of the flat was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 13.04.2016. Thereafter, complainant requested OP for refund of the deposited amount vide letter dated 28.04.2016. It is stated that amount deposited vide challan No.90046708 for Rs.7,59,474/-, vide challan No.90046723 for Rs.4,95,000/- and registration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- total amounting to Rs.13,54,474/- was received by the complainant without any protest. The whole amount including registration money without deducting the cancellation charges was refunded to the complainant. It is stated that the deposit and refund of stamp duty does not pertain to OP.
12. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.
13. Complainant filed the rejoinder stating that the complainant has paid huge interest on the loan taken on Rs.13,50,000/-. OP after about 14 months refused to allot any or the said flat to the complainant hence OP is liable for deficiency in service. It is next stated that the brochure filed by OP under Clause 9 (iii) has clearly stated that
‘in case of registration money is not refunded within three months from the closure of the scheme, in case of unsuccessful applicants, simple interest 8% per annum will be paid on the registration money for the period beyond three months after the closure of the scheme.’
14. Evidence and written arguments on behalf of the parties have been filed. Submissions made on behalf of the parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
15. Admittedly, though the complainant had applied for a flat under the category code ‘Samanya Shreni’ i.e. General Category he was allotted a flat under ‘SC category’. Complainant as per Demand cum Allotment letter had paid Rs.12,54,474/- to OP by 20.04.2015.
16. It is noticed that upon realization of the fact that the flat was allotted to the complainant under a wrong category complainant’s case was considered and rejected by the competent authority of OP. Upon cancellation of the allotment the complainant was finally provided refund of Rs.13,54,474/- by OP, which included the amount paid as per DAL and the registration money of Rs.1,00,000/-.
17. On perusal of the material placed before us it is noticed that complainant had taken a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. on 28.04.2015 to make the payment in DDA Housing Scheme. Complainant took another loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Army Headquarters Co-operative T & C Society Ltd. on 18.05.2015. After the allotment of flat was cancelled, DDA on request from the complainant deposited Rs.13,54,474/- with Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. The said Corporation refunded the balance amount of Rs.9,18,794/- after adjusting the loan outstanding dues of Rs.4,35,680/-. It is also noticed that the office of Collector of Stamps refunded the amount paid by the complainant after deducting Rs.5,900/-.
18. Though OP claims that the mistake of complainant’s name under SC category was made by Axis Bank (which is not a party in the present case) no cogent proof has been filed by OP to prove the same. Moreover, Complainant had filled the form provided by OP which clearly stated that Complainant belonged to ‘Samanya Category’. Complainant had no privity of contract with Axis Bank and has nothing to do with the arrangement between OP and the Axis Bank. There is no denying the fact that complainant suffered monetary loss on account of the interest and other charges paid on the loans and stamp duty paid by the complainant.
19. This Commission is of the considered view that the complainant not only suffered on account of missing a chance to get a flat ,as his name was not put in the right category of draw of lots but the complainant also suffered loss of interest on account of the loan taken and Rs.5,900/- the amount deducted on the stamp duty paid by him. It is seen that the complainant was put to physical, mental and financial loss for no fault of his.
20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh Appeal (Civil) 7173 of 2002 held as under:-
‘the law is that the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by citizen. The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enables a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done.’
21. In light of the judgement (supra ) and the discussion above OP is directed pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards the financial losses suffered by the complainant , compensation for harassment and deficiency of service.
Copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
