Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1110/2015

MRS. MRIDULA BHUTANI & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Arguments:08.01.2016  

Date of Decision: 14.01.2016

Complaint Case No. 1110/2015

In the matter of:

1. Mrs. Mridula Bhutani

W/o Shri Mahesh Chander Bhutani

2. Mrs. Neetu Choudhry

D/o Smt. (Late) C.K.Chaudhry

Both R/o G-4, Pushkar Enclave

Paschim Vihar

New Delhi-110063                                      ...........Complainants

 

Versus

 

Delhi Development Authority

Vikas Sadan, INA Market

New Delhi-110023                                       ..........Opposite Party                                                            

                                                                  

CORAM

 

O P GUPTA                              -                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

S C JAIN                                 -                  MEMBER

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

O P GUPTA -  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.     Sum and substance of the complaint is that both the complainants who are sisters are joint owner of the premises at G-4, Pushkar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
2.     The initial allotment was in the name of their parent which took place on 09.02.1989. The complainants applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold vide application dated 24.12.1999 and deposited Rs. 25,100/- as conversion charges and Rs. 200/- as processing fee. The application was to be disposed of within ninety days as per Annexure A-5. Conversion took place on 28.03.2013 after a period of fourteen years. DDA unjustly enriched itself with the money deposited by the complainants and is guilty of deficiency of service. The complainants wrote more than 130 letters and visited the office of the DDA more than 350 times. Not even a single letter was replied and no information about misuse was given.
3.     On 03.12.2012 misuse demand was raised by the OP for Rs. 8,73,292/- for the period from 01.05.1997 to 29.01.2000 as mentioned in Para 33 of the complaint. No details of misuse charges were given. The complainants deposited the same in order to get out of mental torture and vicious strangulation of twelve years. On 12.03.2014 the OP demanded an affidavit that they have deposited the misuse charges of their own and will not challenge the same in court of law. On 18.03.2014 the complainants gave the required affidavit, under protest. On 28.03.2014 the DDA executed the conveyance deed.
4.     On 25.06.2014 the complainants got 150 pages of file of DDA under RTI. The complainants want to make out cause of action on the basis of receipt of said papers. In the meantime, the DDA cancelled the lease deed on 28.02.2001 due to misuse of the premises. The cancellation was done on the basis of field surveyor report dated 25.02.1997. Ultimately the DDA realised that it had illegally recovered misuse charges and the lease was restored. Legal notice dated 01.06.2015 was served. Hence this complaint for directing OP to pay Rs. 30,73,292/- as compensation calculated @ Rs. 2 lacs per year for the period of 11 years + refund of illegal recovery of misuse charges amounting to Rs. 8,73,292/-.
5.     We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. At the very outset it appears that the application for conversion from lease hold to free hold was to be processed by the OP within 90 days as per Annexure A-5 pleaded in para 5 of the complaint. If the conversion was not done within the said period, the complainants got cause of action to pursue their remedies. Limitation for filing of the complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is two years as mentioned in Section 24 A of Consumer Protect Act 1986.
6.     The complainants did the needful by depositing the misuse charges in 2012 as mentioned in para 9 of the complaint. They gave the required affidavit in March 2014 as mentioned Para 13 of the complaint. Now merely because they have succeeded in getting the conversion done and getting an office noting that the recovery of the misuse charges was illegal, they cannot get back from their own act. They are estopped from challenging the demand of misuse charges. The plea that they deposited the amount to get rid of dispute and filed the affidavit under protest is no answer. Either they should not have subdued to the demand of the OP or once they have complied with now they cannot challenge the same.
7.     The action of cancellation of lease deed does not survive as lease has already been restored as admitted by the complainants. The assessment of compensation based on Rs. 2 lacs p.a. is arbitrary and highly exaggerated.  The same seems to have been incorporated to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission by arriving at an amount of more than Rs. 20 lacs.
8.     Otherwise the flat seems to have been allotted for around Rs. 3-4 lacs only in 1989. The complainants did not tell the price of the flat deposited despite repeated queries made by this Commission at the time of arguments on admission of complaint. A person cannot get compensation of Rs. 22 lacs for a flat purchased by him for Rs. 3 lacs approximately. Consumer Act is not meant for enriching such persons.
9.     The amount claimed by the complainants, if any, is to be disbursed out of public exchequer such case cannot be entertained so lightly.
10.  If the claim of the complainants is confined to recovery of misuse charges, the same is Rs. 8,37,292/- for which pecuniary jurisdiction will lie with the District Forum.
11. Last but not the least is the fact that person who applies for conversion from lease hold to free hold is not consumer as per decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in DDA Vs. S.S.Puri I (1997) CPJ 86 and decision of this Commission in DDA Vs. A.V.Raghvan III (2000) CPJ 295.  
12. The complaint seems to be an abuse of process of court. The same is dismissed in limini with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
13. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of cost as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

 

(O P GUPTA)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)
MEMBER