DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.244/12
Shri Hari Dass
S/O Shri Nathu Singh
C/o Punjab National Bank
Khari Baoli, Delhi. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority
Housing Department
D-Block
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution:15.05.2012
Date of Order :04.05.2023
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award directing DDA (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to issue allotment letter in r/o the flat for which the Complainant was declared successful in the draw and possession of said flat be given (ii) to pay compensation of Rs. 1000/- per month towards mental harassment from 21.03.1997 onwards (iii) Legal expenses of Rs. 6000/- and interest @ 18% p.a. on the Rs. 7500/- be given.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The Complainant applied for flat under Expandable Housing Scheme 1986 of OP on 08.10.1996 alongwith Rs. 7500/- as deposit. The Complainant was declared successful in a draw held on 21.03.97 for the flat B-4, Pocket-6, H.N. 308 at Narela. As per the above mentioned application, the address of the Complainant was given as :-
Haridas Singh C/o Sh. Prem Lal Chaudhari C-1/110, Welcome, Seelampur, Delhi-110053. The Complainant made a request on 06.10.97 vide diary No. 5954 for change in address. The second copy of said application alongwith diary No.5954 was also submitted by the Complainant on the order of this Commission vide order dated 16.04.2019 so as to enable it to verify the facts.
The OP sent the cancellation letter dated 06.05.98 at his old address. The Complainant requested for demand-cum-allotment vide application dated 12.06.2002 & also change in address. The Complainant again vide letter No. dated 28.12.2006 requested for change in address. The Complainant also requested vide RTI, the copy of DAL. The same could not be made available. The OP vide its letter dated 30.11.2007 indicating that the DAL was sent to the address of Complainant but the same had come back whereas the complainant had submitted application on 06.10.1997 for change in address, as stated above. .
OP, on the hand, filed its reply, interalia raised preliminary objections. The OP has challenged the complaint U/s 24-A of CP Act declaring it barred by time. No notice was served on the OP before filing the complaint as required U/s 53 (b) of DDA Act. The instant complaint does not come under the definition of consumer U/s 2(d)(1) of CP Act. There is no hiring of service as defined U/s 2(1)(0) of CP Act. It is a fact that the Complainant was declared successful for allotment of flat No. 308, Sector-B-4, Pocket-6, Type A Gr I Narela. He was intimated on the address as mentioned in the application form. It was contended by OP that the Complainant vide its letter dated 30.06.97 received in diary on 07.07.97 requesting for refund of Rs.7,500/- or allot him any other house as per his choice. The copy of said letter is enclosed as Ex RW 1/4. The OP also sent reply dated 06.05.98 with reference to the above informing him that change of locality in allotment is not permissible as per policy. Copy of said letter is enclosed as EX RW-1/5. It was also stated that Demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the Complainant with block dates 12th/20th Jan 2000. The allotment was subject to the terms & conditions as given DAL, Brochure of E.H.S. 1996 and also DDA (Management and Disposal Housing Estate) Regulations 1968. The DAL was returned undelivered by postal authorities. Due to non-payment, for the said flat, allotment stood cancelled automatically. The OP has denied the receipt of letter dated 06.10.97 for change of address to E.H. S.(H) Branch. To this effect, it was demanded that the Complainant be put to the strict proof.
Under these circumstances, the OP has submitted that Complainant has no case and same is liable to be dismissed.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavit. Written Statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues. Due consideration was given to the arguments. It is admitted fact that the Complainant was declared successful drawee in a draw held on 21.03.97 for the flat No. 308, Sector B-4, Pocket-6, Type-A, Gr-I, Narela. It is also a fact that the Complainant vide its application dated on 07.07.97 requesting to either allot the flat at any other place or refund the amount Rs. 7500/- which was deposited vide his application. OP contended that the Complainant was informed stating that the OP does not have policy regarding change of allotment at any other place vide its letter dated 06.05.98.
The Complainant submitted a letter dated 06.10.97 informing the change in his address. The OP vide its reply has desired to put the Complainant on strict proof on the submission of above letter dated 06.10.97 in the office of OP. The Complainant deposited the duly diarised letter dated 06.10.97 in this Commission on the order of this Forum dated 16.04.19. The same is available in the record file. The grievance of the Complainant is that the demand-cum-letter was not sent to him at his changed address. It was noticed that the DAL was sent at old address despite the fact that the OP was duly intimated about the new changed address. The DAL ought to have been sent to his changed address so as enable the Complainant to complete the formalities and deposition of due amount with OP. The OP had cancelled the allotment due to non-deposition of due amount as per DAL letter. The Complainant has also advanced the copy of Santosh Kumari Khanna Vs. DDA vide which the Hon’ble High Court has taken due cognizance of change in address. The OP has also placed reliance on the following judgments:-
- UT-Chandigarh Administration Vs. Amarjeet Singh 2009 CPJ 486 (SC).
- Kerala Agro Machinery Corp. Ltd. Vs. Bijoy Kumar (2002) 385CC 165.
- Poonam Verma Vs. DDA 2007 (13) SCC 154.
- Skyline Contractors (P. Ltd.) Vs. State of UP 2008 (8) SCC 264.
- DDA Vs. Surender Singh in RPNo. 3791/12 of Hon’ble National Commission.
As regards limitation, this Commission is convinced that the allotment was under cloud and, there was continuous cause of action. Hence, the objection on limitation by the OP is not found sustainable. The OP’s objection on the Complainant being ‘Consumer’ under CP Act is also not found sustainable.
Under these circumstances and facts as narrated above, it is a fact that the Complainant was allotted a flat in a draw under the public policy. It is true that at one stage, the Complainant has requested either for refund or change in allotment at any other place. As per policy of OP, the change in allotment at any other place was not allowed and same was conveyed to him. It is found on examination of facts that the DAL was sent at the old address despite the timely information about the change in address. Duly diarized letter about the change in address was also called for by Hon’ble Commission vide its order dated 16.04.2019 and same is available in record-file. The OP has placed reliance on certain judgment where it was acknowledged that the allotment of the flat at this stage may not be possible. But it cannot be said that OP is not wholly short of obligation. Since, OP has availed his option either to allot the flat at some other place or refund the application amount. Deficiency in service on the part of OP proved partially by the complainant. Therefore the Commission directs OP:-
- To refund Rs. 7,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposition.
- Rs.50,000/- as compensation for not sending the Demand-cum allotment letter at the new address.
- Rs. 6,000/- as legal expenses.
The above amount should be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest shall be levied @ 10% p.a. till its realization.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
