DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.543/2013
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Shri Inder Kumar
R/o B-855, Sector-1,
Rohini, Delhi-110085 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Vice Chairman DDA
D.D.A. Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi
2. The Executive Engineer,
D.D.A. Mangla Puri,
New Delhi ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 12.11.2013 Date of Order : 20.12.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
Brief facts of the complaint as stated are:-
- The complainant, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar had applied for allotment of a flat in the year 2004 and deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with Delhi Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as OP. The complainant was allotted first flat in Sector-12 and at the time of possession it was revealed that the flat was not in existence and thereafter the same was cancelled by OP. It is next stated that OP allotted some other flat in Sector-19 which was worth Rs.15,00,000/- in lieu of the original allotment which was Rs.8,60,200/-. After sometime, the flat in Sector-19 was cancelled and another flat No. 111 in sector-13-B top floor Dwarka was allotted on 30.06.2006.
- It is further averred that when the complainant took over the possession of the above said flat the condition of the flat was very bad. The condition was such that it was dangerous for human life. Therefore complainant could not take the possession of the flat due to defects in construction. Complainant first himself tried to renovate the flat and spent Rs.5000/- approximately but all in vain.
- Thereafter complainant made complaints on 13.08.2008, 27.08.2009, 20.10.2009 to the OP but no action was taken by OP and complainant had to live on rent where he had to pay approximately Rs.4,32,000/- till date.
- It is next stated that the flat was repaired by the OP partly by 08.01.2013 but when the complainant visited the flat he saw that the balcony was still in dilapidated condition and the OP inspite of repeated complaints and requests did not reconstruct the same.
- Aggrieved by the above said circumstances the complainant approached this forum with prayer to direct the OP to pay sum of Rs.11,08,150/- for damages and refund of the money already paid.
- OP resisted the complaint inter-alia by filing the preliminary objections stating that the complaint was time barred under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act as the complaint has been filed beyond the two years limitation. It is next averred that as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act the district forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with the value of goods and services and compensation, if any, claim does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. The claim of the complainant is above Rs.20,00,000/- as per the prayer of the complainant hence, present complaint is outside the purview of this Forum.
2.1 It is further averred that as per the judgment of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. DDA in R.P. no. 1128/2006 dated 08.04.2010, it was held that after taking the possession of the house and making payments, the complaint could not be heard to repudiate a part of transaction. It was specifically written in the possession slip that possession of the flat was handed over to the complainant along with all necessary fittings and fixtures and no defects are apparent. The performa showing the inventory of fitting and fixtures have been checked by OP thoroughly and found to be correct. Furthermore it is stated that in the year 2011 by way of goodwill gesture the OP had repaired the flat in question. The completion of retro fitment work was over on 01.12.2012 and the same was again handed over to the complainant by way of good gesture.
2.2 OP submits that the flat in question was worth living in year 2006 and by way of good gesture the OP repaired the flat in year 2012.
3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit are filed by the complainant wherein reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverting the version of OP. Evidence of Shri Rajinder Singh, Executive Engineer with DDA has been filed on behalf OP.
4. Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
5. After hearing the arguments of Ld. Counsels and giving careful consideration to the rival arguments, a study of the compliant reveals that the complainant was handed over possession of flat No.111 Sector-13/B Dwarka on 03.11.2006 vide Possession Slip which we mark as Mark-A for the sake of identification. For ready reference, the contents of possession slip are reproduced herein below:-
“Certified that the possession of MIG/Self Financing Flat Cat. II at Ground/ First/ Second/ Third Floor bearing No. 111( T.F.) with/ without Scooter Garage No. 111 (T.F.) in 488 MIG House at Sector-13, Pocket-B, Dwarka, Phase-II handed over to Shri/ Smt. Sanjiv Kumar S/o Shri Inder Kumar by the Delhi Development Authority on dated 03.11.06 alongwith necessary fittings and fixtures and no defects are apparent.
This proforma showing the inventory of fittings and fixtures has been checked thoroughly and found correct.”
6. After having obtained the possession of a defect free flat, complainant for the first time made complaint to OP on 13.08.2008 that is approximately 2 years later. Copy of the complaint is marked as Mark-B which was followed by a complaint Mark-C and the last complaint on record is dated 19.08.2010 as Mark-D for the sake of identification. Study of the complaint Mark-B reveals that the complainant had expressed his grievance as regards the cracks which had appeared on the roof after the previous monsoon. Similar grievances were communicated in the complaint dated 26.08.2008 Mark-C and in the last complaint dated 19.08.2010 marked as Mark-D, he has sought permission to construct a room on the roof to avoid wear and tear of the flat.
7. Response to the complainant by executive engineer of OP dated 27.08.2009 which is marked as Mark-E is worth being referred to. In the said response, it has been communicated to the complainant that it is the resident who is to maintain the flat and avoid stagnation of water on the terrace.
8. Complainant’s case that he was allotted a defective flat cannot be accepted as his first complaint to OP is about two years after the possession was taken by him and by accepting that the flat was apparently defect free. In the first complaint dated 13.08.2008 the complainant had communicated that it was after the monsoons that defect appeared in the roof and terrace, to which the executive engineer of OP replied stating that it is duty of the resident to avoid stagnation of water on the terrace. In his subsequent complaint dated 19.08.2010 complainant has sought permission to construct another room on the terrace. From the communications exchanged between the parties before approaching this Forum, it is evident that the possession was handed over of a defect free flat which developed issues about two years later as the complainant did not maintain the same properly.
9. It may also be noticed that as a goodwill gesture OP had repaired and retrofitted the flat in 2013. Photographs of the flat taken by OP in the year 2014 annexed with the written statement validate the claim made by the OP.
10. Therefore this Forum does not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complaint is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 20.12.18.
