DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 648/2009
Ms Savitri Devi
W/o Late Sh. Siya Ram
RZ-613, A/2, Raj Nagar
Part –I, Palam Colony
New Delhi-45. ….Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through Its Vice- Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A , New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Director (C.E.)
A-Block, Ist Floor,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. New Delhi .... Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 19.08.2009
Date of Order: 17 .05.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
As per the averments made in the complaint the Complainant applied for allotment of a Commercial Shop under Staff/ Widow Scheme in the year 2000 with the OP. She was allotted a Commercial Shop/ Stall measuring 07.14+4.94 (CY) Sq. Meters, bearing No. 22, Ground Floor, CSC situated at Block A-6, Near CA Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi vide allotment letter No. F2(52) 2000/CB/SW/5499 and as per the allotment letter she was directed to pay 25% of the reserved price amounting to Rs. 50875/- . According to her total price of the Shop /Stall in question was fixed by the OP as Rs.1,95,500/- and the balance payment was to be deposited by her in installments of Rs. 6499/- each. She was issued a possession letter, No Objection Certificate, Possession slip. She paid the entire installments in time. However, a demand notice dated 17.10.2008 bearing No. F.2(52)/2000/CE/4543 was received by her from the OP thereby demanding Rs. 4,91,500/- against the allotment of the shop/stall in question. She took up the matter with the OP but in vain. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and mal-practice and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the Complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to recall/withdraw the demand notice dated 17.10.2008, to pay to her a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for financial losses, physical harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
The OP in Written Statement has inter-alia stated that the Complainant is challenging the question of pricing of the Shop which cannot be challenged under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is pleaded that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. She had purchased the ready build shop on provisional price. Only provisional demand–cum-allotment letter showing the cost of Rs. 1,95,500/- had been sent to her on 08.09.2000; later on after the final cost of the shop revised demand letter was issued on 14.05.2002 to the Complainant intimating the premium of Shop as Rs 4,91,500/- and after adjusting the amount paid by her Rs. 76,966/- was demanded towards the balance of 25% of the cost and to pay balance in 24 installments of Rs. 13,668/- in 24 monthly installments. Vide her letter dated 20.05.2002 she replied that she was unable to pay the revised demanded amount and she could not afford to pay the same and requested the OP to cancel the shop or to refund the amount. Vide order dated 17.06.2002 the Commissioner, Land Disposal cancelled the shop in question but the cancellation letter was not issued. She has not paid the difference of initial deposit of 25% of Rs 76966/- as demanded, Rs 1,27,835/- on 14.05.2002 and also did not deposit the monthly installment @ 16,338/- and was asked again vide letters dated 11.03.2008, 15.05.2008, 17.10.2008 , 14.01.2009 and 02.06,2009. It is denied that the OP has received the entire consideration in year 2001-2002 as alleged. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder the Complainant has stated that the complainant had paid the entire cost of the shop and the OP again raised demand letter in such a blatant and illegal manner.
The complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. S.S Gill, Director(RL) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP .
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the Complainant and her son in person and Counsel for the OP. We have also gone through the file very carefully.
We do not want to burden the order with a lengthy discussion. The complainant had been allotted a commercial shop by the OP and it is not her case that she had got the shop in question allotted from the OP for the purposes of earning her livelihood. It is true that the OP has not taken this plea in the written statement. However, it is for the Forum to decide the matter according to law. Therefore, presumption is against the Complainant that she had got the shop in question allotted in her name not for the purposes of earning her livelihood.
In Delhi Development Authority Vs A.N. Saigal,1996 CPJ 34(National Commission) relied on behalf of the OP it has been held that the question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum since the price of the flat is not fixed by any law and that even if any excess charge has been collected by way of price that will not constitute a ground for contending that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP DDA. No judgment to the contrary has been brought to our knowledge by the Complainant. Therefore, we hold that the present complaint challenging pricing of the shop in question is otherwise not maintainable before this Forum.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and dismiss the same with no order as to cost.
The original DDA File bearing No. F. 25(32)/2000/CE retained by us on 04.05.2017 be returned to the Counsel for the OP DDA against a proper receipt.
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 17.05.17
