ORDER

15.02.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that under the DDA Housing Scheme 2006 an advertisement was issued by the DDA that all the flats are already constructed and are ready for occupation. It is stated that complainant applied for allotment of a MIG flat on 07.10.2006 and deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being the registration fee of the said flat.
2. It is stated that in the Draw of lots held on 03.01.2007 under the said scheme of DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Registration, 1968, the complainant was declared successful for the allotment of a MIG flat bearing no.134, pocket-4, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085.  It is further stated that Demand-cum-allotment letter No.65822 dated 02.02.2007 in respect of the said flat was issued by DDA and a demand of Rs.17,37,651/- was raised upon the complainant thereby asking the complainant to make the payment of Rs.17,37,651/- by 31.03.2007. It is further stated that complainant completed all the formalities, executed all the documents as required by the demand-cum-allotment letter and deposited a sum of Rs.17,37,651/- on 17.04.2005 vide Challan No.055174.
3. It is stated that thereafter as directed by DDA the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.56,400/- towards transfer duty, Rs.94,000/- towards stamp duty  and Rs.20/- towards C.C Fee, total amounting to Rs.1,51,060/- on 30.04.2007. It is further stated that despite completion of all the formalities and depositing of all the dues well within time, the complainant was not issued possession letter. It is stated that complainant thereafter approached the concerned department of DDA several time for the issue of possession letter and ultimately vide letter dated 16.08.2007 requested the Vice Chairman through the Commissioner (Housing) DDA for issuance of Possession Letter and award  of interest on the entire amount till the complainant actually receives physical possession of the said flat. It is further stated that thereafter the complainant filed appeal before the DDA (office of Appellate Authority Housing) and made R.T.I Application and after making enquiries the complainant came to know that a letter dated 18.09.2009 from the office of the Executive Engineer, Rohini Project Division No.11 was sent to the Deputy Director (MIG), Housing Department, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi informing that as per directions the internal repair of Flat NO.134 has been completed and the same is now ready for handing over and the external repairs of the said flat shall be carried out alongwith repair work of other flats of this Block, which have not been carried out till date.
4. It is stated that complainant received possession letter on 01.06.2009, though the physical possession of the said flat on papers was handed over only on 05.10.2009 without carrying out repair work. It is further stated that complainant paid the stamp duty on 30.04.2007 but the physical possession of the said flat was handed over to the complainant on 02.07.2009, as such the complainant is entitled to interest on the total consideration value of Rs.20,39,060/- @ 15% per annum for the period w.e.f 30.4.2007 to 02.07.2009 as the DDA is charging interest at the same rate on late payments from the allottees of the flat. It is stated that complainant vide letter dated 30.01.2008 requested the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority through its Commissioner Housing for issuance of Possession Letter at the earliest and also claimed interest on the entire amount..
5. It is stated that there is inordinate delay in issuance of possession letter as well as delivering physical possession of the said flat to the complainant. It is further stated that complainant also claims damages @8500/- per month because this much amount was being paid by the complainant towards rent and that till the possession of the flat was handed over no rebate in the income tax was allowed as the complainant has raised House Building Advance. It is stated that OP DDA has been negligent in non-refunding the payment of interest amount which is due to the complainant as well as failed to carry out external repairs of the said flat. Thus, there is deficiency in service as the Department has also been negligent in rendering service, and, therefore, is liable as per provisions of law to make the payment.
6. It is stated that a legal notice under section 80 Civil Procedure Code dated 09.12.2010 under registered AD was served on the OP but inspite of the service of the notice and expiry of the statutory period of two months, the OP has neither paid any amount to the complainant, nor commenced the work for carrying out external repairs of the said flat. It is stated that complainant claims Rs.6,64,370/- towards  interest on Rs.20,39,060/- for the period w.e.f 30.4.2007 to 02.07.2009 @ 15% per annum and the damages @ Rs.8500/- per month for the said period i.e w.e.f 30.04.2007 to 02.07.2009 amounting to Rs.2,21,000/- and Rs.2100/- the cost of the legal notice.
7. It is stated that complainant is seeking direction to OP to pay Rs.6,64,370/- towards interest Rs.2,21,000/- towards damages and Rs.2100/- towards the cost of legal notice, total amounting to Rs.8,87,470/-, direction to carry out the external repairs of the said flat immediately or in addition award Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for the said work and any other further order may be passed in favour of the complainant.
8. OP  filed WS and taken preliminary objection that the present  complaint is mis conceived and there is no cause of action in favor of complainant, therefore, liable to be rejected. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be rejected as beyond time as provided in the provisions of section 24 of the C.P Act, 1986. OP referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, State Bank of India Vs. B.S Agricultural Industry.
9. It is stated that there is neither any willful or malafide intention on the part of DDA in causing delay in handing over physical possession of the flat nor there is any deficiency in rendering the services by OP. It is further stated that due to sudden topographical/geographical reason massive cracks appeared in the cluster of flats including the one allotted to complainant. It is further stated that expert team of DDA observed that flat in question is not safe for occupation, therefore, it was decided to have necessary change/improvement in the structural stability of the flat to ensure safety and security of its occupiers.
10. It is stated that after satisfactory change/improvement in the structural stability of the flat competent authority of DDA decided to hand over physical possession to respective allottees. It is stated that the delay occasioned in handing over physical possession to complainant of the flat due to reasons beyond the control of DDA. It is further stated that delay can be adjusted but safety and security can never be compromised/ignored.
11. On merit the facts with regard to process of allotment of MIG flat and deposit of money and other charges by complainant is admitted. The letter of Superintendent Engineer, C.C. IX vide letter dated 25.05.2007 is also admitted with regard to the conditions of the flats. It is further stated that after completing the repair work possession letter was issued on 01.06.2009 but complainant took over the physical possession of the flat on 02.07.2009. The OP denied all other allegations made in the complaint and reiterated contents of the preliminary objections.
12. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that present complaint is maintainable and not beyond the time as per section 24 of C.P Act 1986. The complainant referred to the judgment of E.I.C.M. Exports Ltd. Vs. South Indian Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. (Supreme Court of India). It is stated that DDA never intimate the alleged reason in delay in handing over possession despite various letters and legal notices written by complainant. It is stated that complainant had made the entire payment on 17.04.2007 and also furnished all requisite documents. It is further stated that the repairs of the flat should have been carried out by the DDA before accepting the cost. It is stated that complainant has been deprived of possession of flat and also burdened with payment of interest towards house building loan. The complainant was also paying rent for the said period. It is stated that when complainant went to take physical possession the site office of DDA directed to come after 30 days by the concerned Junior Engineer. It is stated that complainant is entitled to all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
13. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit. In the affidavit reiterated contents of the complaint. The complainant relied on photocopy of counter file of UPI bank deposit slip Ex.CW1/1, photocopy of draw of lot showing name of complainant Ex.CW1/2, photocopy of demand cum allotment letter Ex.CW1/3, photocopy of challan number 055174 dated 17.04.2005 for Rs.17,37,651/- Ex.CW1/4, photocopy of letter dated 16.08.2007 Ex.CW1/5, photocopy of possession slip Ex.CW1/6, photocopy of letter dated 30.01.2008 Ex.CW1/7 and photocopy of legal notice dated 09.12.2012 Ex.CW1/8.
14. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of D.K Gupta Director Housing. In the affidavit contents of the WS reiterated.
15. Written arguments filed by complainant. The complainant referred to judgment of Smt. Arun Gupta Vs. DDA dated 11.08.2008 in W.P. (C) no.8311/2005 and Rajesh Sharma Vs. DDA decided on 05.02.2010 in W.P. (C) no.4620/2008.
16. Written submissions filed by DDA.
17. We have heard Sh. D.K. Dubey counsel for complainant and Ms. Ravi Prabha counsel for DDA and perused the record. We have gone through record.
18. As per record complainant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint on 22.07.2013. The OP DDA also filed the reply to the application. The complainant filed rejoinder as well. As per record complainant also filed an application under order 6 rule 17 r/w section 151 for amendment of the complaint. The present complaint filed by complainant on 08.07.2011. the possession of the flat in question was handed over to the complainant on 02.07.2009 although complainant filed present application after delay of two years. However, the delay is only of 03 days, hence, in the interest of justice and sufficient cause shown by the complainant i.e. counsel mixed up some papers prior to filing of present case constituted sufficient cause therefore, delay in filing present complaint case of three days stands condoned. Another application filed by complainant for amendment of complaint dated 23.07.2014 wherein complainant wish to amend the complaint only in order to cover the alleged delay. Now the delay application has been allowed and three days delay condoned, therefore, the application for amendment become infructuous.
19. Now coming to merit of case, it is admitted case of parties that complainant applied for allotment of MIG Flat on 07.10.2006 and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The draw of flats held on 03.01.2007  wherein complainant was allotted flat no. 134 Pocket-4, Sector-24, Rohini. As per demand-cum-allotment letter complainant deposited Rs. 17,37,651/- on 17.04.2005. Further, complainant deposited Rs. 56,400/- towards transfer duty, Rs. 94,000/- towards stamp duty and Rs. 20/- towards CC fees total amounting to Rs. 1,51,060/- on 30.04.2007.
20. It is further admitted that physical possession of the flat was handed over by DDA to complainant on 02.07.2009. It is pertinent to mention here that DDA admitted that on 25.07.2007, Superintendent Engineer C.C. IX intimated that there are extensive cracks in the flat and same is not habitable and requested not to issue possession letter. The complainant has filed the documents wherein he made request to DDA to handover the possession after receiving all the charges since August, 2007. The complainant relied on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court W.P (C) 4620/2008 titled as “Rajesh Sharma Vs. DDA” dated 05.02.2010. We have gone through the judgment. This judgment squarely covers the present case of the complainant. The DDA deprived the possession of the flat for about two years due to the admitted fact that the flat was not in habitable condition and require repairs. The entire payment was received by DDA. The complainant claim that he was burdened with rent and no rebate given to him by the Income Tax Department. However, he has not mentioned the details of the rent paid by him during the period of two years. The complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of DDA by depriving the possession after receiving all the payments and charges, therefore, in present fact and circumstances we direct DDA to pay interest on the amount deposited by complainant from the making of the last payment to DDA excluding the period of three months which may be considered as requisite time taken by DDA to process the case up to the date of handing over possession @ 6 % P.A. We further award compensation and litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.
21. The OP is directed to comply the order within 30 days of the receipt of the order failing which OP will be liable to pay the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 9% P.A from the date of receipt of order till realization. File be consigned to record room.
22. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  15.02.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER