DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.494/2009
Sh. Rajni Kant Phadke
LP- 42D, DDA Flat, Pitampura,
Delhi- 110034
….Complainant
Versus
The Vice Chairman
DDA INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi- 110023
Chief Manager
6, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar- IV,
New Delhi- 110024
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 15.06.2009
Date of Order : 07.02.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U. K. Tyagi
The Complaint has been filed for seeking the (a) compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents i.e. OPs (b) and direction to the OPs to perform their statutory duties so that the issuance of NOC and conversion into free-hold in r/o the flat No. LP-42 D, DDA Flats, Maurya Enclave,
Delhi-110034 can be effected by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as OP-1).
Facts leading to the case are that the Complainant was allotted vide draw of lot, a flat as mentioned above, for which possession was taken over on 29.01.1985. The flat was allotted on hire-purchase system of payment for which 120 instalments of Rs.354.25/- each were completed on 10.01.1995. The Complainant has deposited total amount of Rs.47,310/- in 120 instalments. It is also averred that the Complainant had repeatedly requested for the issuance of NOC so that the said flat can be converted from lease hold to free hold but no action was taken by the OP-1. The Complainant also contacted the State Bank of India, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV (hereinafter referred to as OP-2) for issuance of certificate indicating that the total amount paid by him as instalments starting from 1985 to 1995.
On the other hand, OP-1 took preliminary objection on the premise that case being time barred should be rejected. The Complainant has only deposited the initial amount of Rs.9,714.50/- on 07.05.1983 as per Annexure-‘1’ as per record of the OP-1. When Complainant applied for ‘No due Certificate’ vide application dated 10.04.2008 along with some documents containing particulars Sr. No. month/date and challan number etc., the OP-1 stated that there was no mention of amount of monthly instalments being paid and in which branch. Hence, it could not be tallied with the A/c Branch of OP-1 which maintains record on the basis of challans containing the name of bank/branch and accordingly, the OP-1 intimated the Complainant vide letter dated 05.09.2009 requesting further to provide 3rd copies of bank challan so as to enable the OP-1 for processing the case. The Complainant was also requested to attend the office of OP-1 on Monday/Thursday but he never attended as maintained by OP-1. The Complainant was finally requested to provide copies of bank challans from 6/84 to 1/95 vide letter dated 25.08.2009 which is exhibited as Annexure-‘2’. It was also averred by the OP-1 that there are four identical copies of challan. The OP-2 retains two copies of challan having No. 1 & 2 and challans bearing No. 3 & 4 are returned to Complainant by the OP-2 (SBI) after having received the requisite amount. As per terms and conditions of allotment-cum-demand para 3(1) specifically mentioned “The amount demanded should be paid in the form of Demand Draft drawn in favour of DDA or in cash by means of Challan in quadruplicate”.
Para 3 clearly lays down that one copy of challan out of two (i.e. 3& 4) shall be sent to DDA (OP-1) alongwith forwarding letter. Likewise, para 8 of said letter spells out the manner of deposition of monthly instalment. But there is no specific mention about the submission of one copy of challan alongwith forwarding letter to OP-1 in respect of monthly instalment.
OP-2 has further stated that as per averment of Complainant, the last instalment was paid on 10.01.1995 and OP was approached in 01.05.2009 vide letter dated 01.05.2009 after lapse of 14-20 years. OP-2 replied to the said letter stating that according to Bank’s norms, the OP-2 does not keep record more than 10 years old. Hence, it is unable to provide the record of such old transactions. The OP-2 further averred that OP-1 has failed to tally the details of challans mentioned by the Complainant in his various letters to OP-1 and further added that OP-1 in its demand letter dated 08.12.1997 stated that the Complainant has paid 97 instalments out of total 120 instalments but failed to give details and raised the demand for remaining instalments along with penalty. It was also stated that OP-2 has sent all challans within time to OP-1 and it is the duty of OP-1 to maintain its records properly. On these grounds OP-2 has requested for deletion from the array of parties as OP-2 cannot be penalized for the lacuna on the part of OP-1. No deficiency of service is committed by OP-2, hence, no compensatory amount be awarded against
OP-2.
Both the OPs have filed written statement and so rejoinder is filed. All parties filed evidence by way of affidavit and written submission. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone through the entire record placed before us by the respective parties. It was noted that OP-1 has submitted two separate lists of delayed payment on 22.08.2012 and 30.10.2012 in this Commission but the same do not reflect true records of delayed payment. Both the lists indicates different amount. The same was assailed by the Complainant on the ground that there is no mention of the person who has prepared and further it is not stamped as well. Hence, no authentification. The attention of this Commission was also drawn to the date of start of instalment indicating that the various dates of start of 1st instalment such as 10.06.1983, as indicated in writ of demand from the Court of Asstt. Collector Grade-1 whereas the OP-1 in its written statement has indicated the details of payment starting from 6/84 as per letter dated 25.08.2009. It goes to reflect that the OP-1 has not maintained the record properly. The OP-2 has also asserted that OP-1 has failed to maintain record of payment in the instant case. As we understand that the four copies of identical challans are filled before deposition of payment in the Bank and part 1 & 2 are retained by the Bank. One copy of the said identical challan is sent to the OP-1 and part 3 & 4 are returned to the depositor/allottee. One part i.e. part 3 of challan should have been sent to OP-1 with forwarding letter but no specific direction for submission of part 3 was found in case of monthly instalment as has been provided specifically mentioned in the case of initial payment which was required to be paid within one month of receipt of allotment letter. But one copy of challan is undoubtedly received in the DDA from the SBI. At least, on that basis, the OP-1 should have maintained its record properly.
Further it is also noticed that when the writ of demand dated 26.12.1997 was sent to allottee/Complainant and it was assailed by the Complainant then the OP-1 should have called for details of payments made by Complainant from SBI. Till this period, the OP-2 would have been in position to provide the details of monthly instalments. Neither of the parties i.e. Complainant as well as OP-1 has not exercised due diligence to call for the details of monthly payment from the SBI.
It was noted with alacrity that the Complainant had written many letters exhibited as P-3 to P-8. The OP-1 replied in a very routine manner indicating that the Complainant may see the officer concerned on Monday/Thursday but as per statement of Complainant, this meeting was never materialized. It was also further noticed that the allotment letter-cum-demand bear the date of issuance as April, 1983 and as per terms and conditions attached to this letter, the submission of initial amount was to be within one month from the date of issuance of this letter and OP vide its written statement accepted this fact that the amount of Rs.9,714.50/- was received vide challan dated 07.05.1983 as initial deposit. The possession of the flat was given on 29.01.1985 which bears the signature of JE in-charge of DDA. This Commission has also examined minutely the allotment-cum-demand letter and terms and conditions attached to it, it is nowhere mentioned that the 1st instalment/payment shall start from which date. Hence, as regard to starting of 1st instalment, as per averment of the Complainant i.e. after the possession of flat on 29.01.1995, 1st instalment could start logically from 01.06.1985. The OP-1 and OP-2 have disregarded the photocopies of the challans (in total 124) submitted by the Complainant. The statement of account as submitted by the OP-1 was assailed by Complainant specifically by way of written submissions dated 07.02.2013.
The OP-1 has submitted number of judgments in support of its case citing that “the DDA being the creature of statute and therefore, the policy decision or guidelines formulated by DDA have a binding force”.
Further it is also noted that the OP-1 has placed reliance on the fact that as regard to levy of misuse charges, the DDA does not perform any service. This Commission has gone into the ratio of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and found that the facts of instant case are not similar. Hence, these are of no help to OP-1. Here, in the instant case, the OP-1 has failed to maintain its record properly in respect of flat of the Complainant.
In nutshell, this Commission is of the conscious view that the OP-1 has failed squarely in providing the services. Deficiency of services and negligence on the part of OP-1 is established beyond doubt. OP-2 has discharged of its onus of liability as the record so requisitioned by Complainant was beyond the banking norms of maintenance of such record, hence, OP-2 is discharged of its liability. Accordingly, it is directed that the OP-1 shall initiate the process of conversion of freehold from lease hold after completion of the formalities and complete the conversion within 3 months; and further Rs.10,000/- shall also be granted as compensation to the Complainant failing which interest @9% shall be levied till its realization.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
