CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 398/2010 (Old Case No. 1085 of 2005)
Manoj Kumar Verma,
R/o E-305, East of Kailash,
New Delhi – 110065. -Complainant
Vs
M/s Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
Housing Department (DDA),
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 2005/09.08.2010 Date of Order: 17.9.2015
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Undisputed facts are that the complainant had applied for allotment of a MIG flat in Narela Housing Scheme 2004 run by the OP and he deposited the registration amount of Rs. 30,000/- vide application No. 8066. Firstly, by inadvertence or mistake his name was inserted in E.H.S. type (B) flats by the OP and, ultimately, a MIG flat bearing No. 83, Sector A 10, C Block, Pocket 6, GRP 2, Second Floor, Narela on cash down basis in Narela Housing Scheme 2004 was allotted to him and he was given intimation vide letter dated 31.5.2004 dispatched on 7.6.2004 (Copy Annexure A-4).
The legal battle between the parties started from here. According to the complainant, he was thereafter not issued demand-cum-allotment letter despite his having made personal visits to the office of the OP and making the correspondence. Therefore, pleading negligence on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the following prayers as contained in the amended complaint filed on 15.12.2011:
“1 – (ORIGINAL NON AMENDED):– The honourable court is prayed to direct the respondent, for the redraw of M.I.G. flats in so called scheme, from th e successful applications, as for the mistake of the respondent, (as stated self by respondent in its letter vide Annexure A-4) why the applicant/here petitioner has to suffer for an allotment of abandoned/destroyed flat.
2 – (ORIGINAL NON AMENDED):- Honourable Forum is prayed to direct the respondent to get issue self the allotment-cum-demand letter under sealed cover of D.D.A. as to why ask others to issue the allotment as same is against the law, without prior intimation to the allottees.
3 – (ORIGINAL NON AMENDED):- This is prayed to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 20,000/- the cost of Litigation.
4 – (ORIGINAL NON AMENDED):- This is prayed to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassments.
5 - (THE AMENDED ONE):- This is prayed to direct the respondent to pay 15% interests, which to be compounded on every 31 March of every year on account of Rs. 30,000/- paid to respondent on 13.4.2004, the part cost of the Flat, but in controversy the respondent failed to issue the allotment letter plus demand for rest of the cost of the flat. The part cost Rs. 30,000/- of flat is still with respondent from 13.4.2004 and in legal matter the respondent is responsible to pay 15% interest on compounded on every year on 31 March.”
On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 30.6.2004 in respect of Flat No. 83, Sector A 10, C Block, Pocket 6, GRP 2, Second Floor, Narela under MIG category on cash down basis in Narela Residential Scheme was issued to the complainant at his given address through the UTI Bank, Greater Kailash, New Delhi which had been entrusted the job of dispatch of demand-cum-allotment letters of Narela Housing Scheme 2004 to the allottees and the said Bank confirmed this fact vide its letter No. UTIB/GK-1/2006-07/2717 dated 10.1.2006 (Copy Annex. B) thereby intimating that the demand-cum-allotment letter had been delivered to the complainant through Overnight Express Courier on 26.6.2004 vide delivery note No. 36595433. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Written statement of the amended complaint has also been filed. It does not contain any new facts.
The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement.
Earlier the complainant’s affidavit and affidavit of Sh. J.P. Aggarwal, Director (Housing-II) of the OP had been filed in evidence. After the amendment of the complaint, affidavit of Ms. Varsha Sinha, Director (Housing-II) of the DDA/OP has been filed in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the AR for the complainant and the counsel for the OP and have also gone through the record very carefully.
The only question which arises for decision by this Forum is, whether the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 30.6.2004 (Annexure A-6 according to the complainant and Annex A according to the OP) had been sent to the complainant and, if not, to what effect?
The submission of the counsel for the OP is that since the complainant himself has filed the copy of demand-cum-allotment letter dated 30.6.2004, it clearly proves that the complainant had received the demand-cum-allotment letter. To this, the submission of AR for the complainant is that he had procured the copy of the demand-cum-allotment letter from the office of the DDA himself through his own means. The onus to prove that the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 30.6.2004 had been sent to the complainant and duly received by him was on the OP. In order to prove this fact, the OP’s witness (Sh. J.P. Aggarwal) has relied on the copy of letter No. UTIB/GK-1/2006-07/2717 dated 10.1.2006 stated to have been received by the OP from the UTI Bank, Greater Kailash and the copy of the Delivery note No. 36595433 of Overnight Express Courier. The submission made on behalf of the OP is that the demand-cum-allotment letter had been sent to the complainant through the said Overnight Express Courier by the UTI Bank on 26.6.2004. According to the OP, since the complainant failed to make the payment in terms of the demand-cum-allotment letter, therefore the allotment stood cancelled automatically and the complainant is left with no right on the said flat.
As per the case of the OP itself, the demand-cum-allotment letter in question is dated 30.6.2004. Then how could it be sent by the UTI Bank through Overnight Express Courier to the complainant on 26.6.2004 by Delivery note No. 36595433. The document which was not in existence on 26.6.2004 could not have been sent to the complainant on that date through any courier agency or any other agency. When the demand-cum-allotment letter had come into existence on 30.6.2004, we fail to understand as to how could the UTI Bank (Agent of OP) sent the said letter to the complainant on 26.6.2004. We are not at all astonished to see this miracle because such miracles can take place in DDA. Officers of OP DDA can do such chamatkars. Therefore, we see much weight in the submission made on behalf of the complainant that he had procured the copy of the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 30.6.2004 from the office of the OP himself through his own means.
With the receipt of the demand-cum-allotment letter, the liability of the allottee of a particular flat begins. Unless and until the demand-cum-allotment letter which is one of the most important documents to be sent by the OP to the allottees or for that purpose to the complainant is received by the allottee, the process of allotment of the flat does not begin further. The demand-cum-allotment letter vests a legal right in favour of the allottee and also creates his liability to pay the cost of the flat in the manner as specified or prescribed in the demand-cum-allotment letter. Therefore, unless and until the delivery of the demand-cum-allotment letter is proved by the OP beyond any reasonable doubt, presumption cannot be raised that such a letter had in fact been dispatched to the allottee and received by him or her.
In the present case, OP has miserably failed to prove that the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 30.6.2004 had been sent to the complainant on 26.6.2004. Therefore, without making any comment on the mischievous acts of the officers/officials of the OP, we hold that the OP committed serious deficiency in service by not sending the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 30.6.2004 to the complainant and consequently the cancellation of the allotment of the flat in question to the complainant is totally illegal, arbitrary, capricious and without application of mind.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to allot one MIG flat in any locality to the complainant on the same old rates i.e. the rates which were prevalent on the date of allotment of the flat in question to the complainant. The complainant shall deposit the entire amount – Rs. 30,000/- with the OP in lumpsum within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On his depositing the said amount within this period the officers of the OP shall start the process of allotting a MIG flat to the complainant and complete it within a period of 120 days thereafter. We also direct the OP to pay Rs. 25,000/- for compensation towards mental agony to the complainant.
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.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 17.9.15.
17.9.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to allot one MIG flat in any locality to the complainant on the same old rates i.e. the rates which were prevalent on the date of allotment of the flat in question to the complainant. The complainant shall deposit the entire amount – Rs. 30,000/- with the OP in lumpsum within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On his depositing the said amount within this period the officers of the OP shall start the process of allotting a MIG flat to the complainant and complete it within a period of 120 days. We also direct the OP to pay Rs. 25,000/- for compensation towards mental agony to the complainant. Let file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
