DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.224/2011

Shri B.D. Gupta

R/o 551 New Dev Puri,

Marwari Bhawan, Meerut                                           ….Complainant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority

Through its Vice Chairman

Vikas Sadan, Near INA Colony,

New Delhi

                                                                                 ….Opposite Parties

                                                Date of Institution        :  29.06.11        Date of Order                : 16.04.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Succinctly put, the facts leading to the present complaint are :-

1. The complainant applied for allotment of flat under the DDA Housing Scheme 2006, floated by DDA hereinafter referred to as OP.  As per the terms and conditions of the scheme 1 per cent flats were reserved for ex-serviceman category. The complainant being an ex-serviceman applied for the flat after taking loan from UTI Bank, Lajpat Nagar. It was informed by DDA that the complainant was allotted a MIG Flat in Rohini through the draw held on 03.01.2007. The complainant deposited Rs.17,65,832/- on 13.06.2007 through HDFC Bank, as demanded in the allotment letter issued by OP.
2. It is averred that all the necessary payments were made by the complainant by 08.05.2008 including freehold stamp duty fees of Rs.1,12,435/- vide receipt dated 10.04.2008. It is next stated that as per the advertisement of OP the flats were ready for possession. Therefore, OP was required to handover the possession of the flat immediately after completing all formalities on 08.05.2008 but it failed to do so.
3. It is alleged that inspite of several personal visits and repeated reminders, OP finally handed over the possession of the flat on 20.12.2010. The complainant suffered loss due to inordinate delay by OP in handing over the possession of the flat. The said flat was handed over after two years seven months and 12 days and the complainant’s deposit money amounting to Rs.18,78,267/- remained with the OP.
4. Aggrieved, thus, the complainant prays for direction to the OP to pay the complainant Rs.7,20,000/- the interest on the amount deposited by the complainant. Additionally to direct OP to pay, damages / loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost.

2.      OP resisted the complaint inter-alia taking preliminary objection on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction stating that as per the prayer of the complaint and the amount in DAL total value of the goods claimed exceeds Rs.20,00,000/- which is outside the purview of this Forum.

2.1    It is next submitted that the complainant had taken the possession of the flat without any protest.

2.2    It is further submitted that due to major repair works in the MIG flats in Rohini wherein the complainants flat was situated the possession of the flats could not be issued within time. Vide letter dated 12.02.2019 the complainant was informed that the concerned Superintending Engineer had intimated that some defects had been observed in the said flats and repairs were being undertaken which were likely to be completed by May, 2009. Accordingly the possession letter was issued to the complainant on 11.11.2010 but he took over the physical possession of the flat on 20.12.2010. Complainant took possession of the flat without protest. It is submitted that since the complainant had taken the possession of the flat without any protest the contract between the parties was concluded. Therefore, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost as being false and frivolous. 

3.      Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Affidavit of Shri D.K. Gupta, Director H(I) has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.

4.      Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

5.      Arguments on behalf of the parties are heard and record perused very carefully.

6.      Admittedly, the complainant had applied for allotment of flat under DDA Housing Scheme, 2006 in the Ex-serviceman quota. The complainant was declared successful for allotment of MIG Flat through the computerized draw held on 03.01.2007 on cash down basis. The demand cum allotment letter dated 19.01.2007 was issued to the complainant and subsequently, the complainant deposited Rs.17,65,832/- on 13.06.2007 towards the cost of the flat and completed all necessary formalities by 14.03.2008. But the complainant was handed over the physical possession of the flat on 20.12.2010. The main contention of the complainant is that since the physical possession of the flat was handed over after two years of the completion of all necessary formalities, OP is liable to pay interest on the principle amount for the period of delay.

7.      OP has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the complaint. In terms of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, this Forum has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint where the value of goods purchased or the services hired or availed by the consumer alongwith compensation if any, claimed by him is less than Rs.20 lakhs. But in present complaint the amount paid by the complainant in the demand-cum-allotment letter is Rs.17,65,832/- and in the prayer complainant seeks Rs.7,20,000/- by way of interest and Rs.3,20,000/- as compensation  for damages and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and litigation charges. The total value claimed by the complainant exceeds Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, this Forum does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

8.      However, since the complaint remained pending with the Forum for since 2011, we will deal with it on merits as well. As regards the delay of two years OP submitted that due to major repair works and extensive cracks in the flats, the flats were not in habitable condition. Hence, the Superintending Engineer requested not to issue possession letter till the time the flats were repaired or the defects in the flats were removed which led to delay in issuing the possession slips. This fact is affirmed by letter dated 02.02.2009 written by OP to the complainant. Further in letter dated 30.12.2009, Information under RTI Act, is placed on record where it is very clearly mentioned; ‘as and when the flat is repaired, possession will be given shortly’. Therefore, the delay by OP is explained and justified which was not challenged by the complainant at that point of time.  

9.      In such circumstances, in Harpal Arya vs. Housing Board II (2016 CPJ 36) the Hon’ble National Commission has held that after possession is taken the applicant does not remain a consumer. Even in the present case, the complainant has taken the possession of the flat without any protest, therefore, he ceases to be a consumer.

10.    For the reasons stated above, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is 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 16.04.19