CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.493/2010
Smt. Seema Narang
W/o Sh. Sandeep Narang
R/o E-40, Sarita Vihark,
New Delhi-110076 ……Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman
Vias Sadan, INA, New Delhi
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vias Sadan, INA, New Delhi ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 20.07.10 Date of Order : 04.11.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
According to the Complainant, she purchased an LIG flat No.221, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi in September 2006 from Sh. Trilochan Singh through general power of attorney which was originally allotted to another person on the basis of draw held on 26.3.1992 which thereafter changed different hands through GPAs and ultimately sold to the complainant. OPs executed a conveyance deed dated 19.01.2010 in her favour. An application was made for conversion of the flat into freehold vide application No.081552 dated 08.10.2008 and requisite payment for conversion amounting to Rs.55,800/- was made. According to the guidelines issued by OPs conversion process has to be completed within 90 days time. After inordinate delay of more than 9 months OP sent letter dated 14.07.2009 and thereafter an amended letter dated 13.08.2009 asking her to deposit a sum of Rs.3,07,570 by 30.10.2009 as the cost of the flat which had been revised retrospectively without assigning any reason. Complainant has stated that revision of the cost of flat almost 15 years after allotment at the end of instalment period was totally illegal and ab-initio void. She paid Rs.3,07,570/- to OP on 01.10.2009 under duress. Out of this amount a sum of Rs.4082/- pertained to G. Rent and Service Charges which is not disputed. Amount of Rs. 6007/- was also due to be paid to the OP as on 6.3.2009 as per details given in the statement of dues and payments but the balance amount of Rs. 2,98,308/- demanded by OP being instalment of Rs.83,361/-, penalty of Rs.1,63,299/- (cost revision of Rs.56,828/-) was totally unwarranted but however an amount of Rs.6007/- as instalment was remained to be paid and therefore amount of Rs.2,98,308/- was demanded in excess by OP. OP belatedly issued a conveyance deed dated 19.01.2010 against the norms of 90 days prescribed by OP, it took OP more than 16 months to issue the conveyance deed. She represented the matter to the Vice Chairman of OP vide her letter dated 07.05.10 requesting for refund of excess amount [Rs.304315/- 303488/- plus Rs.827 bank charges]. No reply had been received.
By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to refund a sum of Rs.2,98,308/-.
- Direct the OP to pay interest at the market rate i.e. 12% on the amount of Rs.2,98,308/- from the date of payment i.e. 01.10.2009 till the date of refund.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and mental torture caused to the Complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.
In the written statement OPs have stated as under:
“Sh. Vasdev Datwani, an LIG registrant of NPRS-1979 was allotted an LIG flat No. 221, Ground Floor, Madanpur Khadar in the draw held on 26.03.1992 on Hire Purchase basis. The demand–cum-allotment letter was issued to him on 02.09.1994 to deposit the initial cost within the stipulated period and the balance amount in 180 monthly instalments @ Rs.2004.61 each w.e.f. 10.11.1994. On receipt of the initial deposit and required documents, the possession letter was issued to him on 19.09.94 and he took over the possession on 23.09.94.
Smt. Seema Narang/Complainant vide application form No.81552 dated 13.10.08 had applied for conversion of flat in question from leasehold to freehold by furnishing all the required documents.
Since the demanded installments were not fully paid by the allottee/owner of the flat in question, therefore, before processing the case for conversion, DDA vide letter dated 14.07.2009 requested the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,46,047/- on account of monthly instalments, Penalty of Monthly Instalments, Capitalized Ground Rent, Capitalized Service Charges and Difference of cost of flat. In response thereto, the complainant vide letter dated 21.07.2009 furnished the detail of monthly installments and requested to intimate the revised dues. The request of the complainant was examined and she was requested to deposit Rs.3,07,570/- on account of monthly installments, Penalty of Monthly Instalments, Capitalized Ground Rent, Capitalized Service Charges and Difference of Cost of flat. The complainant deposited the demanded amount and furnished the third copy of Bank Challan No. 078184 dated 1.10.09 of Rs. 303488 and Challan No. 799869 dated 30.5.09 of Rs. 4082. Thereafter, on completion of all coda) formalities towards conversion of flat, DDA allowed the conversion of flat in question from leasehold to freehold and the conveyance deed of the flat was executed by DDA on 19.01.2010.”
OP has prayed that the complaint is false, frivolous and misleading and, therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. S. K. Jain, Director (H-1) has been filed in evidence on behalf of OPs.
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 record and the copies of judgments very carefully.
We straightway come to the question, whether demand of refund of Rs.2,98,038/- by the Complainant from the OPs is justified and, if so, whether Complainant is entitled to relief?
It is an admitted case that till the date the complainant had applied for conversion of the flat in question from leasehold to freehold on 8.10.08, instalments of the flat in question were not fully paid. After the receipt of the letter dated 8.10.08 from the complainant the OP worked out the amount of the arrears to be paid by the complainant in which total difference of cost was assessed as Rs. 56828/-. No doubt the said difference in the cost of the flat in question worked out by the officials of the DDA was at least against the principles of natural justice. The original allottee or the complainant who had applied for conversion of the flat in question from leasehold to free hold should have been given an opportunity of being heard. However, that was not done by the OPs. Vide Annexure. XX, complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 3,46,047/- (which included the difference of cost of Rs. 56,828/-). Vide Annexure XXI, the complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 3,07,570/- which included the above stated amount on or before 31.10.09. It is a case of the complainant herself that she deposited the said amount though under duress. The complainant has not filed any iota of evidence on the record to show that any such duress had been exercised upon her by anyone. Therefore, there is no proof of element of duress played upon the complainant. We are not inclined to believe that she had deposited the said amount under duress or under any protest. Thereafter, the flat in question was converted from leasehold to freehold and the conveyance deed of the flat was executed by the OPs in the name of complainant on 19.1.2010. Therefore, the complainant, in our considered opinion, is now estopped from her own act of acquiescence from pleading any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, 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.
Announced on 04.11.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
04.11.2015
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
