DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.136/18
Balbir Singh Dahiya
S/o Shri mange Ram
R/o F-4/12, Second Floor
Model Town, Delhi-110009. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Vice Chairman, DDA
Vikas Sadan, INA Colony
New Delhi-110023. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: None for complainant.
Present: Adv. Tiru Kumari Choubey for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:09.05.2018
Date of Order :19.08.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking refund of registration money of Rs.5,000/- with interest @12% per annum in the alternative MIG plot of 90 sq. mtrs.
- It is stated by the complainant that he was registered for an MIG 90 sq. mtrs. plot and accordingly deposited Rs.5,000/- cash at State Bank of India, DDA Building and was issued registration receipt No.SBI/AZP/81 dated 19.02.1981.
- It is further stated that he was allotted a 60 sq. mtrs. in Rohini instead of 90 sq. mtr. which was rejected by him. It is further stated that since rejection, the OP has not paid back his registration money.
- It is further stated that he shifted his house and therefore he lost bank receipt and registration slip. It is further stated that he has now found both the documents and applied for refund on 26.03.2018 to OP but did not get any response.
- In their reply, it is stated that the complaint is misconceived, baseless and the complainant has concealed true facts. It is denied by the OP that the registration money was deposited by the complainant. It is further denied by the OP that a 60 sq. mtrs. plot was allotted to the complainant. It is stated that as per change in policy of the OP in the year 1989, area of plots was reduced from 90 sq. mtrs. to 60 sq. mtrs due to shortage of land.
- It is further stated that allotment-cum-demand letter was issued vide block date 01.09.2003 to 05.09.2003 to deposit the cost of land as per the schedule mentioned however, the complainant instead of depositing the amount represented to the OP for allotment of larger plot which was not possible for the reasons stated above. It is further stated that on 07.04.2004, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the complainant seeking reasons for cancellation of allotment but the complainant failed to reply and subsequently his allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 24.06.2004.
- In his rejoinder, complainant has stated that the plot was cancelled dated 10.11.2006 and therefore he is entitled to registration money with interest. Both the complainants as well as OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits and written arguments.
- OP has placed on record change policy dated 06.08.1999. OP has also placed on record the public notice dated 01.11.1999. OP has also placed on record the official notings relating to successful allotment of 60 sq. mtrs. to the complainant and noting dated 05.04.2004 wherein it is recorded that the allottee has not deposited the premium of plot. OP has also placed on record the cancellation letter on account of non-payment of premium of plot and documents and all documents to be furnished by the complainant for receiving the refund from OP however, no postal receipt of the same is found on record.
- It is also seen that OP, on a much later stage has filed application under order VII rule 11 seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. There is no doubt that the complainant deposited money with the OP for securing the plot in the MIG category in the year 1981. The complainant in his own averments have stated that he lost the receipt and the allotment letter however, there are no details provided of the dates when the said documents were lost and found.
- The present case has been filed in 2018 seeking refund of the registration money deposited in 1981.
As has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission in Gian Gupta vs DDA CC No. 155/2010 decided on 16.08.2021 “The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality.”
Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the complaint is belatedly time barred and therefore deserves to be dismissed.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
