DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 412/2014

Smt. Madhu Bala                                                        

D/o Sh. Harbans Lal

H.No.540, Gali No.8,

Near Subzi Mandi,

Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Nagar,

Faridabad, Haryana.                                                    ….Complainant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority,

Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi                                   ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        :         03.11.14           Date of Order                :         22.10.19

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

This order will dispose off the complaint as well as the application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with section 13 (2) (7) of CPA.  

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant are:
   1. The complainant, Smt. Madhu Bala, now deceased got herself registered  for allotment of a LIG flat under New Pattern Residential Scheme, 1979 (NPRS-1979) floated by DDA hereinafter referred to as OP.  OP conducted a draw on 31.03.1997 and the complainant was allotted flat No. No.138, Sector-21, Pocket-11, GRP, Ground Floor, Rohini under the Hire Purchase Scheme. The complainant paid Rs.15,000/- towards confirmation for acceptance of the said  allotment. Copy of draw of allotment and challan dated 30.07.1997 for Rs.15,000/- are annexed as Annexure-3 to Annexure-5.
   2. The complainant on 11.09.1997 requested OP for conversion from hire purchase to cash down basis scheme which was acceded to by OP and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.3,08,807.47.
   3. On 11.09.1997 the complainant also requested Dy. Director (LIG DDA) for change of name from Madhu Khanna to Madhu Bala and submitted a copy of decree dated 27.11.1980 dissolving the marriage of the complainant. Copy of the letters to OP are annexed as Annexure-8 & Annexure 9. It is next stated that the complainant on 06.11.1997 requested OP for extension of time as regards the payment as the complainant being a Central Govt. employee had applied for house building Advance. OP acceded to the request and extended the time upto 04.12.1997.  
   4. The complainant deposited Rs.3,08,807/- on 05.03.1999 and submitted the documents desired by the OP on 14.06.1999. It is further stated that it was only on 08.05.01 that OP vide a letter forwarded the complainant four copies of each forms for conveyance deed and handing over possession which were completed and submitted by the complainant on 27.03.2003.
   5. It is further averred that on 18.01.2010 OP vide its letter again raised a demand for Rs.89,853/-. The complainant objected to the said demand stating that she had already made full and final payment on 05.03.1999. Further the grievance of the complainant is that the stamp duty has been charged twice by OP. The complainant wrote various letters to the OP regarding the letter dated 07.08.2007 by OP but received no response.  
   6. The complainant was aggrieved that the ground rent and restoration charges were being charged from the complainant despite the complainant never been informed about the cancellation of the allotment.  Further it is averred that the ground rent can only be charged from the complainant two years after the possession is handed over but as the possession has not been issued to the complainant raising demand for ground rent and further charging of interest for delays are illegal and arbitrary.  The complainant received another letter dated 26.07.2011 from OP wherein the complainant was required to deposit Rs.2,35,796/- towards penalty on cost and restoration charges.  The said amount was paid by the complainant on 06.09.11. It is reiterated that the complainant having paid the amounts raised periodically by OP received another letter dated 26.03.12 directing the complainant to furnish various documents. It is stated that OP kept delaying giving the possession of the flat by requiring that the complainant submit documents. The complainant thrice submitted various documents.
   7. It is next stated that the OP once again raised a demand of Rs.41438/- as outstanding arrears which were again paid by the complainant on 26.12.13.
   8. The complainant received a letter dated 10.07.14 from OP desiring that the complainant submit an affidavit regarding her current marital status and submit undertaking for payment of further increase of conversion charges.  It is stated that the complainant got retired from the govt. service in 2011 and her marital status was already on records of OP. Further OP seeking an undertaking for payment of further increase in conversion charges show that OP is playing a tactic or refusing to issue possession letter to the complainant. Hence, aggrieved the complainant approached the Forum with the following prayers:

1. Direct the OP to release the possession letter in respect of the flat No.138, Sector-21, Pocket-11, GRP, Ground Floor, Rohini.
2. Direct the OP to refund back the amount of Rs.3,01,409/- charged as over and above the actual cost of the flat with interest.
3. Direct the OP to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.24,001/- on account of conveyance charges with interest.
4. Direct the OP to make payment of compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest against their illegal and arbitrary refusal tactics played in issue of possession of the flat to the complainant  compelling her to lead a life of tribal and further to defame a retired lady of 64 years enquiring her marital status whereas it is already on record and thus causing mental, financial torture and social harassment (defamation).

2. OP resisted the complaint inter-alia stating that the complainant was declared successful for allotment of LIG flat under NPRS-1979, on hire purchase basis.                                                                                                                                                                         
   1. It is submitted that DAL was issued to the complainant on 10.06.1997 which was returned undelivered and was received by the complainant by hand on 11.09.1997. It is further submitted that the allotment was subject to terms and conditions as given in the DAL and also DDA (Management and Disposal Housing States) Regulations, 1968. The date of commencement of installment was w.e.f. 10.08.1997 and the ground rent was payable after expiry of two years.
   2. It is next submitted that the complainant deposited the confirmation amount for allotment after delay of 17 days. The complainant requested for change from hire purchase basis to cash down which was acceded to. The complainant again requested for extension of time to pay the initial cost of the flat which was extended upto 31.01.1998. The complainant again requested for extension of time which was acceded by OP and time was further granted upto 31.05.1998.  
   3. OP further submits that the complainant deposited Rs.1,04,000/- on 03.04.1998 but initial demand deposit was that of Rs.1,44,900/- as per DAL. A show cause notice was issued to the complainant on 13.10.1998 to pay the full cost of the flat and submit all documents for possession letter and NOC but no response was received. Another show cause notice was issued to the complainant  on 09.12.1998 to pay the full cost of the flat and all documents for possession letter and NOC which was received undelivered from the postal department. It is further submitted by OP that the complainant deposited the full cost of the flat by 14.06.1999 which was late by 541 days. It is next submitted that a letter dated 15.01.1999 was sent to the complainant  to deposit the balance payment of the flat within 15 days and another letter was sent on 18.03.1999 for submissions of all required documents for possession of the flat. Thereafter the matter was put up for regularization of delay in depositing the confirmation amount, initial deposit of the cost and late submissions of the documents. The matter was placed before the Grievance Redressal Committee where her case was approved on 03.02.2000.
   4. OP further states that the complainant submitted the requisite documents on 14.06.1999 (except undertaking for payment of further increase in conversion charges, affidavit of her current marital status and original FDR) which was late by 642 days. It is submitted that three copies of conveyance deed papers duly stamped was submitted on 26.06.2003 and she also intimated her change of address.
   5. It is next submitted that the outstanding dues against the late payment interest and restoration charges for belated payment i.e. sum of Rs.64,074/- was intimated to the allottee/complainant vide various letters but no response was received. It was only after gap of 3 years that the complainant  submitted her request for possession. The Accounts Branch of OP again worked out the fresh outstanding dues on 31.07.07 amounting to Rs.89,883/- against the late payment interest, cap. ground rent, cap. service charges and restoration charges for belated payment which was again intimated to the complainant  vide various office letters.
   6. The complainant again submitted her request after gap of two years on 16.07.10 for issuing possession letter and NOC. The Accounts Branch again calculated the outstanding dues and intimated the complainant to pay sum of Rs.2,35,797/-. This amount was to be deposited before 31.07.2011. In case it was not done timely she would be liable to pay 15% compound interest which was again intimated to the complainant vide office letter dated 26.07.2011. Thereafter the complainant deposited the demanded amount of Rs.2,35,797/- and also deposited the interest of Rs.5,860/- on 31.12.11. It is next submitted that the complainant was also liable to pay the difference of conversion charges plus cap. ground rent plus cap. service charges i.e. Rs.41,438/- which was also paid on 26.12.13. The same was verified by the Accounts Branch and ‘NIL’ report was issued against the flat on 10.02.2014. The complainant also submitted a supplementary conveyance deed papers after stamping from the Collector of Stamps on          29.04.2014.
   7. It is next submitted that since the mode of payment was changed from hire purchase to cash down and the allotment was on freehold   basis which include conversion charges from leasehold to freehold an undertaking for payment of difference of conversion charges was to be submitted by the complainant  because the rates was provisional. Thereafter an undertaking for payment of difference of conversion charges was requisitioned vide letter dated 10.07.14 and subsequently reminder letter dated 21.01.15. The complainant did not submit the required undertaking therefore the possession of the aforesaid flat could not be handed over to her. It is therefore prayed that the complainant by not fulfilling the requirements/formalities before issuance of possession letter and NOC, cannot impose allegation upon OP and claim compensation. Therefore it is prayed that the present complaint be dismissed with cost.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by OP, reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit of Manoj Kr. Khanna, son/ legal heir of deceased complainant is filed. On the other hand, evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. R. K. Malhotra, Director (H)-II has been filed on behalf of OP.
5. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
6. Arguments of Ld. Counsels are heard and record is perused carefully.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that OP has been illegally making various demands and arbitrarily charging money from the complainant. Despite the complainant giving the requisite documents to OP the complainant is being harassed by seeking the same documents again and again by OP and not issuing the possession letter and NOC.
8. It is observed that the complainant had delayed the payment of initial cost of flat by 541 days. Further the complainant submitted the requisite documents late by 642 days. We are of  the opinion that on account of these delays by the complainant OP was within its rights in taking the late payment interest, restoration charges and any other charges which are in accordance with the policy of OP.
9. Further it is noticed that the flat was initially registered on hire purchase basis and later the complainant  requested the OP to convert it into cash down therefore the allotment was to be converted on freehold basis which includes conversion charges from leasehold to freehold. It is further noticed that the OP had required an undertaking for payment of difference of conversion charges which was to be submitted by the complainant because the rates were provisional. The complainant did not submit the required undertaking therefore the possession of the aforesaid flat could not be handed over to her. We are of the opinion that the OP being a Statutory Authority cannot issue possession letter and NOC to the complainant without the complainant having fulfilled all the required formalities. Further it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has paid all the money to OP vide challans and this money is all accounted for. Therefore the bald averments that OP has over charged or illegally demanded money does not hold water in the eyes of the Forum.
10. However, it is noticed that the complainant has by now paid all the charges demanded by the OP except for the undertaking on conversion charges. We have no reasons to disbelieve that on furnishing the requisite documents and making the payment of conversion charges OP will take necessary action and issue the possession letter accordingly.
11. Hence, for the reasons stated above complaint is not found to be meritorious. Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency of service on the part of OP, therefore the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. It is further noticed that the complainant died during the pendency of the case and son of the complainant  had moved an application under order XXII Rule 3 of CPC read with section 13 (2) (7) of CPA, 1986 alongwith death certificate of the complainant. It is stated in the application that Manoj Kr. Khanna (son) is the only legal heir of the complainant Smt. Madhu Bala.  The application is allowed to the extent that Manoj Kr. Khanna son of the deceased/ complainant is allowed to pursue the present complaint but OP is within its right to check the bonafides of the legal heir and proceed accordingly.

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 22.10.19.