CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.1747/2004
Sh. Ravinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ch. Attar Singh
R/o A-76, Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi-110018 ……Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman
2. The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, Behind INA Market
New Delhi
3. Director (Housing)
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, Behind INA Market
New Delhi
4. Deputy Director (N.P.) Housing
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, Behind INA Market
New Delhi. ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 31.12.04 Date of Order : 31.10.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Facts are that in pursuance of the registration made by the Complainant with the OP for allotment of a flat under the MIG category on hire purchase basis his name was registered vide registration No.11937 dated 23.4.1980 and he deposited Rs.4500/- as registration charges with the OPs. OPs informed vide letter dated 31.12.1999 - 07.01.2000 that he had been allotted a flat bearing No.114, ground floor, Sector-XIII, Pocket-I, Phase-I, Dwarka, on the basis of draw held on 03.12.1999. As per the said demand letter, he deposited Rs.20,000/- as confirmation deposit vide challan No.2910 dated 01.02.2000. He was further required to deposit a total amount of Rs.7,88,164.86 by 06.04.2000. He requested the OPs for extension of time for payment. On 03.07.2000, he deposited Rs.3,50,000/- as he was not in a position to pay the remaining amount. He sent a request letter on 05.07.2000 for further extension of the period of payment. The OPs vide letter dated 07.11.2000 informed him that the time of payment had been extended upto 03.10.2000. He had already deposited a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- on 17.10.2000. Thus, he had deposited a sum of Rs.6,47,063/- and for the remaining amount, he sent a request letter to the OP on 02.11.2000 for extension of time for payment of remaining amount. The OPs issued a show cause notice dated 22.11.2000 and another final show cause notice dated 22.12.2000 calling upon him to show cause within 15 days why the allotment of the flat be not cancelled for breach of terms and conditions of the allotment. He replied the same on 05.01.2001 and explained the circumstances under which he could not deposit full consideration amount and informed them that he had been applying for extension of time for payment of consideration of the flat. On 06.11.2001, he requested the OPs for issuance of fresh demand notice so that the balance amount could be paid by him. On 21.12.2001 he deposited Rs.1,10,000/- and again on 23.12.2001 he deposited Rs.60,000/- and he submitted the challans with the OPs. He received a letter dated 30.12.2001 from the OPs wherein he was asked to deposit the balance amount as per demand letter dated 31.12.1999-07.01.2000 but he had already paid all the dues as per letter dated 31.12.1999-07.01.2000. He visited number of times to the office of OPs regarding handing over possession of the flat. On 06.09.2002 he wrote a letter to the Assistant Director (MIG) of OPs for giving all the details of the payment and submitted all the photocopies of all the challans. When no reply was received he visited the OPs office finally he was told to deposit an amount of Rs.8,200/- as usual charges for delayed payment which he deposited on 02.12.2002 and intimated the same to OPs vide letter dated 3.12.2002. He received a letter dated 23.05.2003 from the Asstt. Director (MIG) of OPs to deposit Rs.1,29,382/- on account of interest and restoration charges due to late deposit of cost of the flat without giving any break up of the amount and rate of interest though he had already deposited Rs.8200/- for late payment. He had not received any cancellation notice of the flat from the OPs, hence, there was no question of restoration for which charges were included. As he had already deposited Rs.8,25,263/- without getting the possession he is entitled for the interest on this amount from OPs. He again received a letter dated 17.05.04 from the OPs wherein he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,45,789.29 on account of restoration charges and interest upto 31.05.04. He deposited an amount of Rs.145,789.29 vide challan No. 34503 dated 18.05.04 and submitted a letter that he had deposited this amount under protest in regard to interest and restoration charges imposed by them. Even after receiving this amount on 18.05.04 the OPs did not take any action to hand over the possession of the flat. He had to run from pillar to post in the office of OPs and only then OPs issued letter on 17.06.04 thereby handing over the possession of the flat on 13.07.04. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OPs to return/refund the amount excessively charged by the OPs allegedly on account of restoration charges and interest Rs.1,45,789.29 to the Complainant, which he deposited with the OPs vide challan No.34503 dated 18.05.04.
- Direct the OPs to pay to the Complainant interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.1,45,789.29 from the date of payment till the handing over of possession of the said flat to the Complainant.
- Direct the OPs to compensate the Complainant to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss suffered by the Complainant due to delay in handing over of the possession of the allotted house and also on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant due to the conduct of the OPs.
In the written statement, OP has stated that there is neither any deficiency in service nor any negligence on the part of OPs. It is a fact that the Complainant, vide registration No. 11937, got himself registered for allotment of MIG flat under NPRS scheme 1979 by depositing the registration money of Rs.4,500/-. He did not register on hire purchase basis; that as per clause 10 of the brochure 40% of the MIG flats were to be allotted on cash down basis and 60% on hire purchase basis. He was declared successful for allotment of MIG flat No. 114, Ground Floor, Sector-XIII, Phase-I, Dwarka in the draw held on 03.12.1999. The allotment-cum-demand letter was issued on 21.12.1999-07.01.2000 on cash down basis. The last date of making the payment of confirmation amount of Rs.20,000/- and balance amount of Rs.7,88,164/- were 06.02.2000 and 06.04.2000 respectively. He deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- vide challan No.2910 on 01.02.2000. Complainant delayed the payment of balance demanded amount as per the terms and conditions of the demand-cum-allotment letter despite giving extensions. New demand letter was not sent to the Complainant as there was no need to send any fresh demand as the demand towards the cost of the flat had already been sent to the Complainant. The Complainant failed to make the payment within the stipulated period as per the terms and conditions of the demand–cum-allotment letter, hence, show cause notice was sent to him. The last date of payment was within 90 days from the date of issuance of demand–cum-allotment letter and after that there was automatic cancellation as per clause No. 5 of the demand–cum-allotment letter. It is stated that vide letters dated 10.9.2001, 30.1.2002 and 28.10.2002 complainant was requested to deposit the balance amount as per demand-cum-allotment letter but he deposited the balance cost on 15.3.2003. It is denied that payment of Rs. 8200/- was made as late payment and the same was paid towards the balance cost as per challan (copy Annexure. 4). Vide letter dated 23.05.2003, OPs requested the Complainant to make the payment of Rs.1,29,382/- on account of interest and restoration charges due to the late deposit of the cost of the flat. But he failed to make the payment and sent a letter dated 06.10.03 requesting them to intimate the details of the amount demanded. They sent a letter dated 03.12.2003 alognwith details of the demanded amount to the Complainant and requested him to make the payment of Rs.1,38,719.48 on account of interest and restoration charges due to the late deposit of cost of the flat upto 31.12.2003. Again they sent a letter dated 17.05.04 requesting him to make the payment of Rs.1,45,789.29 on account of interest and restoration charges upto 31.05.04. The Complainant vide challan No.84503 dated 18.05.04 made the payment of Rs.1,45,800/-. The conveyance deed papers which were issued to him on 21.03.2003 for stamping were deposited by him on 17.06.2004 but he did not request for the execution of the conveyance deed. The delay was caused by him in making the payment and, hence, the interest and restoration charges were charged. OP has requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. J. P. Aggarwal Director (Housing-II) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Original DDA file has also been requisitioned by our predecessors and filed on 6.5.13.
We straightway come to the question, whether the restoration charges and interest charged by the OPs was legal and justified and, if so, whether the Complainant is not entitled to any relief?
Facts are not in dispute. The Complainant was registered for a MIG flat under NPRS scheme, 1979 by depositing the registration money of Rs.4500/-. He was allotted a MIG flat No. 114, ground floor, Sector-XIII, Pocket-I, Phase-I Dwarka on 03.12.1999.
The demand–cum-allotment letter for Rs. 817425/- was issued to him on 21.12.1999- 07.01.2000 (copy Ex. RW1/2). Clause No.5 of the demand–cum-allotment letter reads as under:
“The allottee is required to submit Confirmation of Acceptance alongwith Confirmation Deposit within 90 days from date of issue of the Demand cum Allotment Letter failing which Allotment as well as Registration will be cancelled automatically.”
The Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- as confirmation charges. The balance amount of Rs.7,88,164/- was to be deposited on or before 06.04.2000. The Complainant requested for extension of time from time to time.
It is clear that the Complainant requested the OPs time and again for extension of time for depositing the balance amount and the OPs granted extension of time subject to payment of usual charges as per DDA rules. As is clear from letter dated 7.11.2000 written by the OPs to the complainant (Copy Ex. RW1/2), the complainant had to make the full and final payment on or before 6.4.2000. Admittedly, he did not deposit the whole amount within this period and deposited the same within the extended period which was granted to him subject to payment of usual charges as per DDA rules. Once the OPs had issued demand-cum-allotment letter dated 21.12.1999 - 7.1.2000 to him there was no need for the DDA to send him new or revised demand letter/s time and again. Therefore, the complainant was not justified in asking the OPs to issue fresh demand letter/s to him in order to enable him to make the payment of the balance amount. He knew about the amount of the balance payment to be made by him to the OPs towards allotment of the flat in question.
It is, no doubt, true that no specific cancellation letter in respect of flat in question has been filed on the record but reliance has been made on clause 5 of the demand-cum-allotment letter ibid which specifically provides for automatic cancellation of the flat in case of non-payment with the stipulated amount.
According to the complainant, he had deposited the amount of Rs. 1,45,789.29p on 18.5.2004 under protest. In this regard, he has made a reliance on the copy of the letter dated 18.5.2004 Ex. CW1/16A. At this stage, we would like to mention here that complainant has not marked exhibit numbers on the corresponding documents as per the exhibit numbers given to them in his affidavit. We mark the copy of the said letter as mark ‘AA’ for the purposes of identification. Mere fact that the complainant had deposited the said amount under protest would not prove that the said demand had been raised against the rules. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the demand of Rs. 1,45,789.29p on account of restoration charges and interest upto 31.5.2004 was totally justified. The OPs, hence, did not commit any deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let original DDA file be handed over to Sh. P.K. Aggarwal, Adv. for OP against a receipt after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of the appeal.
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 31.10.15.
(Naina Bakshi) (N.K. Goel) Member President
31.10.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
