DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.516/2010

Sh. Dharshan Lal                                                (Senior Citizen

WZ-34A, Gali No. 5/6                                        75 years old)

Ramgarh Colony,

New Delhi-110015                                                  ….Complainant

Versus

DDA

through its Vice Chairman

INA, Vikas Sadan,

New Delhi-110003                                              ……Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 28.01.10 

                                                Date of Order                : 09.06.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

From reading of the complaint, the case of the complainant is that he had booked a MIG flat under the New Pattern Scheme, 1979 (NPRS, 1979) in the year 1979 with the OP and deposited Rs.1500/- vide receipt No.68552, Book No.686 dated 19.09.1979 and he was also issued a priority No. for an LIG Flat. Allotment of the flat was to be made on the basis of seniority of priority No. and availability of the flats in the preferred area where the flats were under completion or construction. The complainant who is an Ex-Serviceman never received any allotment letter at the given address of his AIR HQs though he had received all other letters from the OP DDA at his address with the AIR HQs. At least 50 reminders were sent by him to the OP DDA and it was revealed that the complainant had not responded to the allotment letter timely and hence the allotment had been cancelled. According to him, he never received any such allotment letter. Hence, he has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to allot a flat to him in any good area at the prevailing rates in 1996 and adequate fine of Rs.2 lacs be also imposed on the officers/working staff of the OP who were responsible for causing mental agony and stress to him and that the amount be also refunded to him alongwith interest @ 36% per annum from the date of deposit.

In the written statement, the OP has inter-alia stated that priority No.29143 had been allotted to the complainant. It is stated as follows:-

“6-9  ……It is submitted that on the turn of the priority, the complainant was allotted a flat No.331 in Block ‘D’, Pocket-III, Bindapur in the draw held on 20.01.1994. The demand cum allotment letter was sent to the complainant in the block date 14.2.94 – 22.2.94. The said demand cum allotment letter was duly received by the complainant.

                    The complainant vide letter dated 18.3.1994 sought the cancellation of the said flat and also deposited a sum of Rs.300/- towards cancellation  charges vide challan No.011658 dated 18.3.94. The allotment was cancelled at the request of the complainant. Thus D.D.A. discharged its obligations in terms of the brochure and the complainant was not entitled to any further flat in terms of the brochure.

                    It is submitted that as per policy dated 31.1.1994, the practice to keep the name of the registrants alive in the form of tail end priority on the existing priority list was abolished. As such the complainant was not entitled for allotment of any further flat.

                    The complainant was thereafter inadvertently allotted a flat No.79, Sector-21, Pocket-13, Phase-III, Rohini, New Delhi and a demand cum allotment letter was sent to the complainant in the block dated 22.7.96 – 5.8.96. The complainant again wrote a letter dated 27.9.96 stating therein that his financial position is not good and he cannot pay the amount of the flat and also asked the DDA to allot the flat at tail end. Since the tail end priority scheme had been closed, therefore, the request of the complainant was rejected by the Opposite Party.

                    Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 10.12.96 was sent to the complainant and since the complainant failed to make the payment, therefore, the allotment was cancelled and vide letter dated 19.2.1997 the complainant was asked to apply for refund. Since the allotment stood cancelled therefore the complainant is not entitled for allotment of any flat.”

Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has not filed a rejoinder to the written statement.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and has not preferred to deal with the averments made in the written statement of the OP.

On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. D. K. Gupta, Director (H-II) has been filed in evidence.  He has relied on documents Ex. RW-1/1 to Ex. RW-1/8.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

We have heard the oral arguments advanced at the bar on behalf of the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

The submission made on behalf of the complainant is that no allotment letter was ever received by the complainant and the documents relied on by the OP’s witness are false and fabricated. According to the counsel for the complainant, the complainant is entitled to be allotted a flat keeping in view the fact that he has served in the defence service and is now leading a retired life as an Ex-serviceman. On the other hand, one of the submissions made on behalf of the OP is that the complainant had been allotted two separate flats at the two different times but it was he who had got the allotment cancelled and hence he is not entitled to any relief.

The complainant has not marked any Ex. Nos. on the documents filed alongwith the complaint nor has put any reliance on any such documents in his affidavit. The complainant has also not filed any document on the record to show that he had received number of letters/communications from the OP at his AIR HQs address and only the demand-cum-allotment letter had not been received by him at the said address.

The complainant has filed a copy of a notice dated 04.05.10 sent on his behalf by Sh. Manoj Kumar Ahuja Adv. We mark the same as Mark A for the purposes of identification. In para 3 of the notice it has been stated that in the year 1994 the complainant had received an allotment letter dated 14.02.1994 and the complainant was informed that he had been declared successful for allotment of flat No. 331, Pocket-3, Block-B, Bindapur, Delhi with disposal cost of the flat of Rs.223800/-. In para 4 of the notice it has been stated that immediately the complainant contacted Dy. Director (LIG) Housing and informed that at present the complainant was not in a position to pay the cost of the flat and so his name be included in the next draw. The address of the complainant in the said notice has been given as WZ-34A, Gali No.5/6, Ramgarh Colony, New Delhi.  Thereafter,  the OP sent a reply to the said legal notice vide letter No.L15(569)/96/RO/NP/pt/5151 dated 18.06.10 which we mark as Mark B for the purposes of identification wherein it was inter-alia stated that subsequently a demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of flat No.79, First Floor, Sector-21, Pocket-3, Phase-III, Rohini had been sent to the complainant. Even from the legal notice sent by the complainant through his Adv. it itself stands proved on the record that he had been issued allotment letter dated 14.02.94 and had been allotted a flat No.331, Pocket-3, Block-B, Bindapur, Delhi but it was he who had got the allotment cancelled because of the reason that he was not in a position to pay the cost of the flat. Therefore, the version of the complainant that he never received any allotment letter in respect of any flat stands belied by his own document and the case of the complainant has become doubtful. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the allotment letter for the block dates 14.02.1994 to 22.02.1994 in respect of the above stated flat at Bindapur (copy Ex. RW1/2) and the request letter for cancelling the allotment of the said flat and payment of Rs.300/- in this regard (copy Ex. RW1/3) are forged and fabricated document. Moreover, the OP is a government organization. Vide Circular No.F2(82) 93-Coordn. (H) dated 31.1.1994 (copy Ex. RW1/4) the practice of relegating defaulters to tail end had been discontinued w.e.f. 01.01.1994 by the OP. Anyhow, the copy of another allotment letter dated 22.07.1996 thereby allotting a flat No.79, First Floor, Sector-21, Pocket-13, Phase-III, Rohini has been placed on the file as Ex. RW1/5.

In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove and especially the fact that from the document of the complainant itself it stands proved that earlier a flat at Bindapur had been allotted to him, we are not inclined to disbelieve the issuance of the said allotment letter dated 22.07.1996 to the complainant. Allotment letter dated 14.02.1994 and allotment letter dated 22.07.1996 (copy Ex. RW1/5) were sent to the complainant on the same address i.e. WZ- 46E/8, Basai Darapur, New Delhi. Therefore, if the complainant had received the allotment letter dated 14.02.1994 on the said address, the presumption is in favour of the OP that the complainant must have also received allotment letter dated 22.07.1996 on the said address. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the 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.

Announced on 09.06.17.