DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.668/2009
Sh. Satender Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Pyare Lal,
R/o 399/15, Ashok Nagar,
Gohana Road,
Rohtak (Haryana) ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
through its Chairman
INA Market, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 27.08.09 Date of Order : 02.08.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he applied with the OP for allotment of MIG flat under SC Category vide Registration No.317152 under the DDA 2006 Scheme and deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. After the draw of lots, he was informed by the OP that a MIG flat No.87, IIIrd floor, Sector-21, Pocket-7, Rohini, Delhi had been allotted to him vide allotment letter No.65764 dated 19.01.07. As per the allotment letter the last date for depositing the remaining amount/cost of the flat was 18.01.07 and the balance amount of Rs.18.01,698/- was to be paid till 18.07.07. On 18.07.07 while he was coming from Rohtak to Delhi in Sirsa Express Train all his original documents pertaining to the above flat were lost. He lodged police report vide D.D. No.19 dated 19.07.07 at P.S. G.R.P. Rohtak Railway Station. He sent a letter to the OP on 25.07.07 and requested for extension of time to deposit the cost of the flat till 16.08.07. After that, he met with senior officials of the OP several times and also made a written request for extension of time but the OP did not take any action on his request. Hence he could not deposit the balance cost of the flat. He made several requests to the senior officials of the OP but could not get satisfactory reply regarding status of the flat. The Complainant has stated that he had deposited Rs.1,50,000/- as an application amount with the OP. The OP did not inform him regarding cancellation of flat or extension of time for depositing the remaining amount. The Complainant has stated as follows:-
“11. That according to the “Clause 12” of the DDA Housing Scheme 2006, there is a provision that DDA would charge cancellation charges of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the application amount if the remaining amount of the flat is not deposited by the allottee within 180 days of the allotment and the allotment of the flat would automatically be cancelled and the remaining amount would be refunded to the allottee after submission of the original allotment cum demand letter issued by the opposite party in respect of the allotted flat. It is submitted that the original documents in respect of the allotted flat were lost in the above said incident which was intimated to the opposite party by the applicant. The clause does not provide for extension of time in case of any Emergency or any reasonable cause. Hence the said provision is unreasonable & arbitrary.
12. That the “Clause 12” DDA Housing Scheme 2006 is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and unconscionable and is liable and the same can’t be acted upon being unconscionable, unreasonable & arbitrary. It is submitted that the applicant had no other option but to agree with all the conditions of the above said scheme of the opposite party which is drafted by the opposite party.
13. That the opposite party had undue advantage in respect with the applicant as applicant was required to sign and agree with the scheme because the applicant had no other option if application of the applicant was to be considered by the opposite party. It is submitted that the “Clause 12” of the DDA Housing Scheme 2006 may not be considered as a part of the agreement between applicant and the opposite party.”
Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP the complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OP to refund application amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith upto date interest @ 18% per annum.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs..50,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and agony to the Complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the Complainant had applied for allotment of MIG flat under SC category vide application No.317152 under DDA Housing Scheme, 2006 and deposited Rs.1,50,000/- towards registration money. He was allotted a MIG flat No.87, 3rd Floor, Pocket-7, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi on cash down basis in the draw held on 03.01.07. Demand–cum-allotment letter No. 65764 was issued to him on 19.01.07 with a request to deposit the cost of the flat and submit documents for possession upto 18.07.07, where after there was automatic cancelation. It is inter-alia stated that the Complainant was informed that time extension was not allowed in the Scheme DDA -06 as already mentioned in the brochure of the scheme. He was also requested to apply for refund of registration money as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the brochure of the scheme. OP has stated that no formal request for refund of the registration money was received from the Complainant despite requesting the Complainant vide letter dated 04.07.08 and 13.05.09 by the OP. As soon as the Complainant submits the formal request for refund and required documents for refund, if any, as per terms and conditions of the brochure/DDA Housing scheme the same will be refunded to him as the Complainant has admitted the cancellation of the flat. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. S. K. Jain Director (Housing) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Undisputably the Complainant had applied for allotment of MIG flat under SC Category vide Registration No.317152 and deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with the OP. He was allotted a MIG flat No.87, IIIrd floor, Sector-21, Pocket-7, Rohini, Delhi vide allotment letter No.65764 dated 19.01.07 (copy Ex.OPW1/2). OP vide letter dated 04.07.08 informed the Complainant under RTI Act that extension of time was not allowed in the Scheme DDA -2006 as already mentioned in the brochure of the Scheme (copy Ex.OPW1/3). As per the allotment letter the last date for depositing the remaining amount/cost of the flat was 18.01.07 and the balance amount of Rs.18.01,698/- was to be paid till 18.07.07. OP vide letter dated 25.09.08 informed the Complainant that in the Scheme there was no clause for grant of extension of time therefore, Complainant was requested to apply for refund of registration of money if any and submit all the original documents for processing the case of registration of money as per brochure of the scheme. ( Copy Ex. Ex.OPW1/4). The OP vide letter dated 13.05.09 again requested the Complainant to apply for refund of money. The clause 12 of the Scheme is an integral part of the contract between the parties. It has to be given its full effect. This Forum is not competent to not to consider the said clause. Therefore, OP is entitled to invoke clause of the scheme.
In view of the above, it is evident from the record that the Complainant has not submitted original documents or indemnity bond in lieu thereof with OP for refunding registration as per rules despite number of letters/requests issued by the OP in this regard. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint 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.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 02.08.2016.
