DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.239/2013
Sh. Devki Nandan Ranjan (Senior Citizen
S/o Sh. Karam Chand 75 years old)
R/o 1883, Outram Line,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA Delhi …...Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 23.04.2013 Date of Order : 26.04.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
As per the averments made in the amended complaint, the complainant had booked a LIG flat under NPRS 1979 scheme by paying a sum of Rs.1500/- on 13.09.1979 and he was allotted a registration No.6282 (later on changed to 43380) vide receipt No.63522. At the time of registration his address was House No. E-201, Outram Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi which was demolished in the year 1984 as per the Kingsway Redevelopment Scheme. The Complainant changed his address to 1883, Outram Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and the information regarding change of address was conveyed to the OP in written application vide diary No.301 on 20.05.1988. The complainant came to know about the draw held on 15.10.2004 but the OP did not inform him regarding allotment of LIG flat under NPRS 1979 at his new address and when he contacted the OP no satisfactory reply was given by the OP. He filed an application under the RTI Act on 12.11.2009 which was replied by the OP vide office letter No. L339(2294)/05/05/NP/NA/768 dated 22.01.2010 wherein it was informed that flat No.270, Sector-9, Pocket-4, 2nd Floor, Narela, Delhi was allotted to him and the notice of said allotment was sent to him at his old address i.e. E-201, Outram Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. OP did not do anything despite false assurances given to him. Hence pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to allot the flat No.270, Sector-9, Pocket-4, 2nd Floor, Narela, Delhi or in alternative allot the similar flat of DDA and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony to him.
In the amended written statement the OP has inter-alia stated that the complainant Sh. Devki Nandan Ranjan R/o E-201, Outrem Line, K.W. Camp, Delhi got himself registered for allotment of LIG flat under NPRS-1979. He was assigned a priority No. 43380 against the registration No. 6282. Subsequently he was allotted a LIG flat No.270, Block L-2, Pkt-4, Sector A-9, Second Floor, Narela in the draw held on 15.10.04 on hire purchase basis. Demand-cum-allotment letter dated 12.08.05 was sent to the complainant at his residential address i.e. E-201, Outrem Line, K.W. Camp, Delhi with a request to make payment as per schedule mentioned therein. The allotment was subject to terms and conditions as given in the demand-cum-allotment letter, brochure and also DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates ) Regulations, 1968. There was condition for automatic cancellation of allotment and registration if initial amount is not paid by 09.01.06. The demand-cum-allotment letter was received back undelivered with remarks “No such person.” Thereafter letter dated 06.09.05 and show cause notice dated 16.10.07 were issued to the complainant at the above address as well as occupational address but nothing was heard from the complainant as a result of which the aforesaid flat stood cancelled automatically due to non-payment. It is submitted that during the pendency of the case the OP DDA has agreed for re-examination of the present case related to the allotment of LIG category under wrong address policy of DDA dated 13.09.2013 as well as CBI letter dated 18.09.13. Vide letter dated 14.07.14 and alongwith he application filed certain documents like Adhar Card, Voter ID, record of Electoral Office, Ration Card and Driving License but all these documents were found to be issued after the date of change of address i.e. 20.05.1988. The complainant was requested to submit the documentary proof of residence of changed address on the date of submission of application i.e. 20.05.88 vide DDA letter dated 25.08.14 and 07.11.14 in compliance of the terms and conditions of the wrong address policy circular dated 13.09.13 and CBI letter/policy dated 18.09.13. The complainant vide his letter dated 04.12.14 submitted copy of passport, ration card, Adhar Card, Voter card, bank account passbook, passbook of Thrift and Credit Society of Delhi Parivahan Karamchari and copies of electoral roll. From a perusal of the aforesaid documents it was revealed that the passport was issued on 20.03.82 but at the old address. Copy of the passbook does not bear the date of issue. The ration card is of the changed address but issued on 19.10.05 i.e. much after the date of intimation (20.05.88). Voter card, adhar card, passbook of the society named Delhi Parivahan Karamchari Cooperative Thrift and Electoral roll are also after the date of intimation (20.05.88). The complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the circular dated 13.09.13 and CBI letter dated 18.09.13. As per circular dated 13.09.13 (para 2) and policy/CBI letter dated 18.09.13 in all the cases of Wrong Address Policy apart from other conditions, the allottee has to submit a proof of his residence at the changed address on the date of submission of application (for change of address). In the present case, the application for change of address was submitted on 20.05.1988 but the documents submitted by the Complainant are not covered under documents of proof of change of address as per policy of DDA dated 13.09.13 as well as Policy letter dated 18.09.13. The competent authority of OP DDA vide note dated 25.06.15 in terms of the above facts rejected the case of the complainant as it was not covered under the Wrong Address Policy of OP DDA. After cancellation of the flat in question and the closure of LIG Scheme after vide publicity through advertisements in the leading newspapers, the complainant is not entitled for allotment but he is only entitled for refund of his registration money as admissible as per policy by furnishing all the original/required documents. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In the counter affidavit/rejoinder filed on behalf of the complainant it is stated as under:-
“complainant was never informed or communicated in respect of the allotment of LIG flat No.270, Block-L-2, Pocket-4, Sector-A-9, Second Floor, Narela, Delhi of which draw was held on 15.10.2004 on hire purchase basis. The stories made by the opposite party/DDA of automatic cancellation of the allotment and registration is mere fabrication all the brief facts are misconceived, misleading and without any merit. The compliance of the terms and conditions of the circular dated 13.09.2013 and CBI letter dated 18.09.2013 is not applicable in the present case. The opposite party has played a foul game with the complainant and all the allegations circular and LIG Scheme under NPRS-1979 Scheme are mere excuses to cover the negligence and foul play of the opposite party/DDA and complainant is made victimized by the official of the DDA for their negligence and the official concerned are liable to be punished as per law and accountability needs to be fixed for sheer negligence of the official concerned to this case for which the complainant has suffered mental agony all these years.”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. R. K. Malhotra, Director (H-II) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
In our considered opinion, the matter does not require any lengthy discussion. The averments made by the complainant in the complaint and affidavit that vide his letter dated 20.05.88 (we mark the letter as Annexure-1 for the purpose of proper identification) he had intimated about the change of his address to the OP which was acknowledged by the OP vide diary No.301 dated 20.05.88 are admitted by the OP. According to the OP, the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the complainant on his old address. It is not the case of the OP that demand-cum-allotment letter had ever been issued to the complainant at his newly intimated address. Was it not the legal duty of the OP to send the demand-cum-allotment letter to the complainant on his newly intimated address? Certainly. However, the OP did not do so for the best reasons known to its officers/officials and they deprived a legally entitled person from allotment of a residential apartment/flat. The complainant had been deprived from the allotment of the flat by the callous, indifferent and harsh attitude of the officials of the OP. Mere publication of a general notice in a newspaper is of no assistance to the OP. The facts of the case hoarsely demonstrate the manner in which the officials of the OP sometimes act in a very highhandedness, nepotism manner and in a manner as if they are the final authority in the matters and allottees are totally dependent on their mercy. The innocent complainant could not get possession of a flat which was allotted to him by the OP in the draw held on 15.10.04 only because of the highhandedness of the officials of the OP. When he had not got any relief from the office of the OP he filed the present complaint as the OP had already admitted that they had issued the demand-cum-allotment letter on the old address and the same was received back with the remark “no such person. Therefore, it is a case of highhandedness and gross deficiency in service on the part of the officials of the OP.
The complainant had informed the OP about the change of his address on 20.05.1988 though the draw was held on 15.10.04. It means that the complainant had informed about the change of his address 16 years ago before the date of draw held on 15.10.04. Therefore, the bonafide of the complainant cannot be questioned by the OP by merely saying that the complainant had failed to provide the documents about his changed address on the date of the application i.e. 20.05.1988. The copy of the circular dated 13.09.13 issued by the OP is Ex. OPW1/1 (Colly). The para 2 of the circular is relevant and the same is reproduced as hereunder:
“The registrants be asked to produce documentary evidence to establish the fact that they were residing at the changed address at the time of issuance of Demand–cum-Allotment Letter in the earlier available addresses. If required these documentary evidences like Ration Cards/Voter Photo Identity Cards/Passport/Driving Licence issued at the changed address be also be verified from the issuing Authority.”
The copy of the letter dated 18.09.13 written by the CBI to the OP is Ex. OPW/2. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as hereunder:-
“It is also advised that in view of the Hon’ble High Court order, if any flat is allotted to the applicant under ‘Wrong Address Policy’, then following conditions in the allotment letter may be incorporated in view of the ongoing CBI investigation:-
i.The allottee will submit a proof of his residence at the changed address on the date of submission of application.
ii.The allottee will submit an undertaking that he will not sale the flat for 5 years.
iii.The allottee will make the payment from his own bank account. In case, the allottee raises a private loan for making payment to DDA, he shall intimate the complete details of the loanee/lender along with his PAN Card Number.
iv.The allotment will be provisional and will be subject to result of CBI investigation into the matter.”
In our considered opinion, the terms contained in these two documents are not applicable to the special facts and circumstance of the present case discussed hereinabove. Therefore, we hold that the OP is not entitled to derive any benefit from these documents. It is the OP who had itself opened the policy for allotment of flats on “Wrong Address Policy.” Therefore, the closure of NPRS Scheme by the OP subsequently does not apply to the facts of the present case. The judgments relied on by the OP in SLP (Civil) No.30208/2009 on 06.07.10 and Appeal (Civil) No.5874 of 2007 on 13.12.2007 do not apply to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Surinder Singh in R.P. No.3791 of 12 decided in May, 2013 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Raj Bala Grover in F.A. No.112 of 06, decided on 22.09.11 do not apply to the special facts and circumstances of the case. Suffice it to say that the complaint is not time barred.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we hold the OP guilty of gross deficiency in service. We direct the OP to include the name of the complainant in the next draw to be held by the OP in respect of LIG flats in any locality. OP shall allot a LIG flat to the complainant on the costs prevalent on 23.04.13 (date of filing of complaint). After the allotment of an LIG flat to the complainant the OP shall issue a demand-cum- allotment letter to the complainant at his present given address through Speed Post. On receipt of the demand-cum- allotment letter the complainant shall deposit the entire cost amount within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the demand-cum- allotment letter from the OP. During that period, the OP shall not be entitled to claim interest on the cost amount. If the complainant does not deposit the entire amount or any part thereof within the stipulated period the OP shall become entitled to claim the interest as per the prevalent rules. OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
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 26.04.17.
