DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.838/2009
1. Kuldeep Kumar Sachdeva
S/o Late Shri G.D Sachdeva,
R/o A-136, Nand Ram Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59
2. Subhash Sachdeva,
S/o Late Shri G.D Sachdeva,
R/o A-136, Nand Ram Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59
3. Inder Sachdeva,
S/o Late Shri G.D Sachdeva,
R/o A-136, Nand Ram Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59
4. Roopa Arora,
W/o Shri Anand Arora,
D/o Late Shri G.D. Sachdeva,
H.No. 26-Z, Second Floor,
Paharganj, New Delhi-55
5. Veena Chhabra,
W/o Subhash Chhabra,
D/o Late Shri G.D. Sachdeva,
R/o B-100/1, Sadatpur,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
6. Lalita Anand,
W/o Sandeep Anand,
D/o Late Shri G.D Sachdeva,
E-6, First Floor,
Park View Officers Enclave,
Rohini, Sector-1, New Delhi-85.
7. Jyoti Arora,
W/o Ishu Arora,
D/o Late Shri G.D Sachdeva,
A-55/2,4, Gurudwara Gali,
Jagat Puri, New Delhi-51
….Complainants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi.
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 24.11.2009
Date of Order : 31.08.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
1. Complainant has prayed to pass an award directing Delhi Development Area (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to allot the flat No. 170, Pocket-5, Block F, Sector-16, Rohini, New Delhi to the Complainant being the legal heir of the deceased allottee; (ii) or in the alternative, to allot any other flat similarly situated to the Complainant;(vi) or pass any other orders in favour of the Complainant which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper etc.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The Complainant’s mother Smt. Kaushalaya Devi booked a flat with OP under the New Pattern Registration Scheme- 1979. At the time of booking of the flat, she was residing with Complainant’s brother at A-5, B/183 B, Janakpuri, New Delhi. No letter/response was received till her death on 26.05.1998. At the time of her death, the Complainant’s mother was residing with him at A-136, Nand Ram Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. It was averred that while disposing of the old and long kept papers, he chanced upon a Registration Receipt No.29415 dated 03.10.1979 for a flat (Janta Category under N.P.R.S.-1979). After many abortive attempts to find out the fate of allotment against this receipt, the Complainant applied under RTI applications for seeking information to PIO and the 1st Appellate Authority. In the process, he got copy of Demand Note, cancellation etc. in the name of the mother of the Complainant etc.
3. It may be apt to mention here that Sh. G.D Sharma vide his affidavit has affirmed that the instant complaint was filed by him against OP for re-allotment of a flat allotted to his mother. The said flat was illegally and wrongfully cancelled and allotted to someone. Smt. Kaushalya Devi died on 26.05.1998 leaving behind only three legal representatives namely Sh. Jagdish Lal Sachdeva, Smt. Ganeshi Devi Popli and the complainant. There were no other legal heirs of Smt. Kaushalya Devi. The Counsel for Complainant had made written statement thereby deleting their names from the array of parties. Therefore, this forum vide its order dated 30.08.2017 allowed the deletion of names from the array of parties. The application for impleadment of the legal heirs of Sh. G.D Sachdeva, who died on 21.06.2013 was considered vide order dated 14.12.2017 and allowed.
4. OP on the other hand, filed Written Statement interalia raising some preliminary objections. It was averred that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time as provided u/s 24 A of Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant is not covered under the definition of “Consumer”. The OP further contended that the above mentioned flat was allotted to Smt. Kaushalaya Devi and accordingly Demand-cum-allotment (DAL) letter was sent to her at B-183/B, Janakpuri and thereafter Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 04.01.1993. The said allotment was cancelled due to non-payment and same was conveyed to her vide letter dated 26.07.1993. It was allotted to next registrant. OP also denied that the Complainant is entitled to any other alternative flat.
5. Both the parties have filed written submissions as well as evidence-in-affidavit. Written Statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
6. This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues and material placed before us. Due consideration was given to the arguments. It is noticed by the Commission that the Complainant had consistently maintained that the Complainant’s mother was never informed by the OP about the said allotment, though the OP states that Show Cause Notice (SCN) and cancellation letters were also shown to have been sent to Smt. Kaushalya Devi on address given in the Application Form.
7. The Complainant had rebutted the contention of the OP with regard to intimation/DAL to have been sent to her recorded address. He had requested that OP be put up on strictest test to prove its averment to this effect that Smt. Kaushalya Devi was issued intimation of allotment as maintained by Complainant vide its rejoinder.
8. This Commission has also seen the copies of DAL, SCN and cancellation letters. But neither proof of despatch was adduced here nor any mode of despatch – Registered Post etc is found written on these letters, mentioned above except one Notice dated 04.01.1993. But no other proof such as dispatch receipt of registered post to this effect was also not produced.
9. As regards the objection of the OP about the time barring of the Complaint, the Commission believes the contention of the Complainant to this effect that no intimation of allotment was received till her death and while disposing the old paper, the complaint could see the registration receipt of N.P.R.S. -1979 and further to obtain the information, he resorted to RTI application etc. Since, the allotment was not intimated; therefore, the cause of action was continuous. So the objection of time barring is found devoid of merit. It is noted that the OP had been maintaining all through that the said scheme had been closed and due intimation to all concerned had been given through Notification/Press Notice. But at the same time, this Commission could not overlook the deficiency in service and negligent attitude of the official of the OP.
10. After considering the facts and circumstances in the case, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the OP should compensate the Complainant/ LRs. Accordingly, OP is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency-in-service within 03 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the rate of interest on the said amount shall be levied @9% per annum till realization.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
