CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.567/2010
Smt. Lakshmi Pal
W/o Late Sh. H. K. Pal
R/o House No.911, Phase-III,
Part-II, Urban Estate,
Bathinda, Punjab ……Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi-110023 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 06.09.10 Date of Order : 06.11.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that she applied for an LIG flat with the OP under registration scheme on New Pattern, 1979 in the scheduled caste category and submitted her application alongwith all the requisite documents including a copy of the SC certificate and the registration fee of Rs.1,500/-. As per terms and conditions of the registration scheme, a fee of Rs.1200/- and Rs.1500/- was prescribed for SC and general categories respectively but she had submitted registration fee of Rs.1500/- instead of 1200/-. The OP, without examining the other details, categorized her application as of general category and given the registration number 50344/LIG- F. No. 8 (50344)/79/NP/LIG. At the time of announcing the scheme the OP prescribed the approximate cost of the LIG flat in the range of Rs.30,000/-, 40,000/- and Rs.45,000/- depending upon the location of the flat. Other applicants belonging to SC category were allotted LIG flats as per priority number allotted to them but when no flat was allotted to her, she approached and checked with the OP for the fate of her application and the reasons as to why her turn did not come. She came to know from the OP that on account of registration fee of Rs.1500/- the application was put up in the general category and she was not allotted an LIG flat as large number of applicants of general category were waiting in the pipeline. She submitted the required documents including the copy of SC certificate vide her letter dated 24.02.1987 to enable them to change the category. The OP again asked for documents on 06.06.1990. She submitted the same personally on 21.06.1990 and the category of application was changed from general to SC category. OP vide their letter dated 09.01.1991- 13.01.1991 allotted an LIG flat No.106, first floor, Block-G, Pocket-7, Sector-15, Rohini against registration No.6467 (S/C) priority No.42 through a draw held on 12.10.1190 and asked for Rs.1,68,100/- as cost of the flat to be paid by 13.04.1991. The Complainant alongwith her late husband approached the OP to know the reasons about escalation in cost of flat to Rs.1,68,100/- (though in a better location i.e. Paschim Vihar LIG Flats were allotted at a price of Rs. 68,000/- in 1990) against the originally proposed cost between Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.45,000/-. However, OP issued a show cause notice dated 08.04.1992 with the direction to submit documents showing payment/ documents failing which allotment of flat shall be cancelled and amount of registration fee after deducting cancellation charges would be refunded to her in terms of allotment letter dated 13.01.1994. When she did not get any response from the OP, her late husband approached Ministry of Urban Development vide letter dated 6.6.2006 to intimate the rules under which allotment of flat in question had been cancelled by the OP without replying to her letter/request. Despite receiving reference from the Ministry vide letter dated 3.7.2006 the OP had maintained silence. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.03.2010 to the OP bringing to their notice irregularities committed by them while dealing with the application and various representations with regard to the allotment of LIG flat but to her utter surprise vide reply letter No. L.15(336)91/RO/NP/3735 dated 10.4.2010 the OP rejected her request for revival of the claim for allotment of LIG flat and she was advised to apply for refund of registration money as the LIG scheme under NPRS-1979 had since been closed. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to revive the allotment of LIG flat in favour of the Complainant and to allot the same with a reasonable price.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental torture to the Complainant and also the litigation expenses.
In the written statement, OP has stated that the Complainant vide her application No.224789 dated 03.10.1979 had got herself registered for allotment of LIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme-1979 under general category. Complainant deposited registration money of Rs.1500/- which was for general category and, therefore, the name of the Complainant was considered as a general applicant. The request of the Complainant dated 03.06.1986 for change of category from general to SC category was examined by the competent authority but could not be acceded to. A regret letter in this regard was sent to her vide letter dated 04.04.1988. Thereafter she further represented for change of category from General to SC and furnished the form of caste-certificate. The case was re-examined and the category of the registrant/Complainant from General to SC was acceded to by the competent authority. Accordingly intimation dated 25.07.1990 in this regard was sent to the Complainant by mentioning her new registration No.6467. She was also issued a fresh priority No.42. Thereafter Complainant was allotted a LIG flat No.106, Pocket-7, Block-G, Rohini on hire and purchase basis. The demand–cum-allotment letter dated 09.01.1991 – 13.01.1991 was issued to her to deposit the initial amount on or before 13.04.1991 alongwith all the required documents. Since the Complainant failed to deposit the cost of the flat, a show cause notice dated 08.04.1992 was issued to her but she did not deposit the cost of the flat as per terms and conditions of demand–cum-allotment letter, cancellation letter was issued to her on 1.6.92 and vide letter dated 05.07.1994, she was requested to deposit the cancellation charges of Rs.1805/-. The Complainant vide letter dated 23.12.2003 requested to revive the case for re-allotment of flat on priority basis. Her request was examined and replied by DDA vide letter dated 24.02.2004 that since the allotment of flat had been cancelled, she should apply for refund of registration of money by submitting the requisite documents. Since the LIG scheme under NPRS-1979 has since been closed, complainant is entitled only for refund of her registration money as admissible as per policy. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with an exemplary cost.
Complainant has filed replication to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. D. K. Gupta, Director (H-II) has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.
Copy of the application submitted by the complainant with the OP in pursuance of the NPHR Scheme 1979 is Ex. OPW1/1, from a perusal of which it clearly transpires that the complainant had applied for allotment of LIG flat under Scheduled Caste (SC) category though she had deposited the amount of Rs. 1500/- instead of Rs. 1200/- as was required to be done by the applicants under SC category. The application is dated 3.10.79 which also proves that the copy of SC/ST certificate was attached with the application. Therefore, mere fact that the complainant had deposited Rs. 1500/- instead of Rs. 1200/- the OP was not justified in getting her registration done under the General category. The criteria for categorization of the complainant under the general category by the officials of the OP was highly vindicative, capricious and unlawful. In any case, her request for registering her name under the SC category was ultimately acceded to by the officials of the OP vide letter dated 24.2.87. She was also issued a fresh registration number and the priority number. She was also issued a allotment-cum-demand letter in respect of the flat in question but, however, she was directed to deposit Rs. 1,68,100/- towards the cost of the said flat. Here, we would like to mention that the version of the complainant that the original price of the LIG flats to be allotted under the scheme was assessed in the range of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- depending upon the location of the flat has not been denied by the OP in the written statement. Therefore, the said fact should be deemed to have been proved and admitted by the OP.
Ex. OPW1/9 is the copy of the registration scheme on new pattern 1979 in which the likely cost of a LIG flat has been shown as Rs. 18,000/- though the same did not represent the final cost. In any case, vide the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 9.1.1991-13.1.1991 the complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 1,68,100/- towards the cost
price of the flat in question which in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove was certainly on much much higher side because the complainant was entitled to be registered for allotment for a LIG flat under SC category which could not be done due to the intentional or unintentional but perfunctory and/or mischievous act on the part of the officials of the OP.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant did not deposit any amount against the demand of Rs. 1,68,100/-. The complainant has herself filed the copy of letter No. 15(336)91/RO/NP dated 8.4.92 as Ex. CW1/E which is a copy of the show-cause notice whereby she was directed to show-cause within 15 days from the date of issue of the said letter as to why the allotment of the flat in question be not cancelled for breach of terms and conditions of allotment letter. However, the complainant has not filed any document to show that she had sent any representation against the said show-cause notice.
She has not specifically pleaded in the complaint that the allotment of the flat in question had been cancelled by the OP vide letter dated 1.6.92. However, in the replication she has not specifically denied this fact and has instead stated that inspite of intimating the reasons for escalation of the cost of the flat in question the OP cancelled the allotment after serving show-cause notice dated 8.4.92 on her. Therefore, it stands proved on the record that the allotment of the flat in question had stood cancelled on 1.6.92. Thereafter, according to the complainant, she and her late husband had been pursuing the matter with the OP and ultimately her late husband took the matter with the Ministry of Urban Development vide letter dated 6.6.06 and vide letter 3.7.06 the Ministry had sent a reference to the OP. However, the complainant has not filed the copy of letter dated 6.6.06 on the file. Therefore, even if we presume that her husband had written any such letter to the Urban Development Ministry thereafter a long gap of about 4 years. In all a very long gap of about 18 years (1992 to 2010) occurred when legal notice dated 26.3.10 (copy Ex. CW1/E) had been sent on behalf of the complainant by her advocate to the OP. The said letter had been replied by the OP (copy Ex. CW1/H) in which every fact pleaded in the written statement had been stated. Therefore, the complainant, in our considered opinion, is now estopped from her own conduct and act of acquiescence from challenging the legality of the cancellation of the flat in question in her favour vide letter dated 1.6.92. She is guilty of delay and latches.
In view of the above discussion, 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 06.11.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
06.11.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
