DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.496/09
Mrs. Rasham Bala
D-16/C, Hauz Khas
New Delhi-110016. ….Complainant
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice-Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi. ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution:16.09.2009
Date of Order :11.07.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
Complainant has prayed this Commission to allow the claim of Rs. 2 Lac alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from 5.2.1996 till the date of payment etc. from the DDA (hereinafter referred to as OP).
Brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant got registered herself for allotment of a Cat.III flat under 6th SFS vide FDR No.5269 dated 23.7.1985 in the draw of allocation held on 12.11.1990, the complainant was allocated a Cat. II SFS flat in Block-C, Pkt 9, GF & FF. The complainant made the payment as per payment schedule and there was no delay on the part of complainant. The complainant was allotted flat No.9358 in Vasant Kunj in the draw for specific flat held on 15.7.1993. The OP demanded Rs.60,500/- w.e.f. 01.03.1994. The 5th and final demand letter was issued on 03.08.1995 vide which an amount of Rs.3,68,216/- was demanded and same was deposited on 02.11.1995. The complainant vide its letter dated 08.02.1996 requested for refund of Rs.60,500/-. It was also averred by the complainant that the said amount was deposited under protest. The complainant also mentioned the case of Mr. Mehta wherein the Hon’ble Lok Adalat directed to refund the actual period of interest (API). The complainant had requested to allot the refund of the API amounting Rs.60,500/-. This amount was not being refunded despite many request of OP. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence complaint.
OP, on the other hand, has given detailed reply inter-alia raising some preliminary objections. It was averred that the complaint is time-barred under Section 24A of C.P. Act. Shri V.K. Sinha GPA/purchaser of the said flat should have been impleaded as necessary party. It was clarified on the face of demand letter for the 5th instalment that API will be charged w.e.f. 01.03.1994 to 02.10.1995 amounting Rs.5,98,350/- alongwith. R/money on FDR Rs.657/- totalling Rs.60,490/- was worked out. It was also stated by OP that representations of the complainant were examined and duly replied to vide letters dated 17.06.2006, 06.08.2007, 23.08.2007, 01.04.2008 and 21.08.2008. It was also asserted by the OP that the 5th and final instalment becomes due on 01.03.1994. Therefore API so charged from complainant was justified.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavits. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. None appeared on behalf of complainant despite this fact that case was listed for final arguments on 06.08.2021, 07.02.2022 and 04.05.2022. Since it is an old case of 2009, the same cannot be kept open-ended. Hence kept for orders.
This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record. Due consideration, was given to the arguments. The contentions of the complainant centred around that he was charged API wrongly. The complainant has also mentioned the case of Mr. Mehta where the Lok Adalat had allowed the refund of API charges. No more details have been given. The complainant also approached Lok Adalat where Hon’ble Justice had also sent the case to DDA for consideration of API. Case of Mr. Mehta for refund of charges of API was also found mentioned in his note by the Presiding Officer. The Hon’ble Justice further stated that there is dispute of serious nature regarding payment. Such dispute cannot be settled here in these proceedings. Hence, case was remanded to OP.
Complaint was also examined in terms of the time-barring as objected by the OP. It is also seen that Conveyance Deed was executed in 19.06.2003. As contended by OP that action seems to have been completed. Hence, case was filed in 2009 so highly time barred. We have seen various letters issued to the complainant in response to his representations till 2008. OP also contended that mere exchange of letters cannot extend the. This issue was also examined in detail and it was noted that the note dated 31.12.2008 was sent to OP by the Presiding Officer of Lok Adalat stating that the matter involved serious nature of dispute regarding payment. Hence, it may be decided by OP itself. In view of observation of Hon’ble Judge, the case cannot be termed as time barred.
The OP has also advanced the case of Sushil Kr. Sharma Vs. DDA decided on 08.04.2010 in RP No. 1128 of 2006 where in the National Commission held that “The Self-Financing Scheme is based on the concept of financial participation of prospective allottees meaning thereby that the construction activities are undertaken on the strength of payments received from allottees. The Hon’ble Commission further states that it has been rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel for OP that actual period of interest (API) is a method of updating the cost of the flat at the time of issue of allotment letter/demand letter so as to bring the price of flat at par with earlier allottees. In the case in hand, it has been explained that the construction of the flats was started in 1986 and four instalments had falled due by the time the complainant entered the Scheme and therefore charging of the actual period interest is perfectly in order”. The complainant also got allotted the said flat No.9358 in draw for specific flat held on 15.07.1993 as mentioned in the complaint.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and respectfully following the ratio of above mentioned case of Hon’ble National Commission, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complaint is devoid of merit. Hence it fails and request of the complainant is rejected.
No order as to cost.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
