DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.656/2008
Sh. Om Prakash
183-D/1, Lane I-13-B,
Western Avenue, Sainik Farms,
New Delhi-110062 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 29.08.08 Date of Order : 10.01.19
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant booked an MIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS, 1979) by depositing a sum of Rs.4500/-. Vide challan No.17616 dated 03.09.1979 and deposit receipt No.130715 dated 03.09.1979. The complainant was not allotted any flat by the OP for nine years. The complainant vide letter dated 20.09.1988 requested the OP for conversion of his registration from New Pattern Scheme to Self Financing Scheme. The OP vide letter dated 24.10.1979 asked the complainant to submit a photo and attested a signature alongwith a copy of ration card on the ground that his signatures differed. The OP vide letter dated 09.01.89 informed the complainant that his request for conversion of registration from MIG/New Pattern Scheme to SFS has been acceded to and the registration money of NPRS will be adjusted to SFS in due course and the demand note for the same will be sent. It is submitted that even lapse of 16 years there was no communication from the OP regarding allotment of flat under SFS despite repeated visits to the office of the OP and met with officials of OP. During his visit to the OP in October 2005 it was informed that SFS was no longer alive and the complainant should request for allotment of flat under the NPRS Scheme itself as his priority No.8343 under NPRS. In these circumstances, the complainant was suggested by the officers fo the OP to get his registration of NPRS restored by making formal request for the purpose. Thus the complainant vide letter dated 24.10.05 requested the OP to allot him a flat under the NPRS as more than 26 years had passed waiting for allotment of flat. The complainant received a letter dated 11.01.089 from the OP that his request for allotment of a flat under the NPRS could not be acceded to and he was advised to apply for refund of registration money by submitting original registration papers. Immediately, the complainant approached the OP vide letter dated 28.01.08 questioning the rejection of his request for allotment of flat under NPRS, since he was having the registration form of 1979 but no response received from the OP so far. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:
- to quash and set aside the letter file No. 9(1048)79/NP/MIG/71 dt. 11.1.2008.
- Direct the OP to restore the registration of the complainant for allotment of flat under the NPRS/SFS and allot a flat to the complainant immediately at the rates prevalent at the time when allotments were made by OP DDA to persons having priority number just below the complainant as he has already waited for about 29 years for allotment of a flat from the OP.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony undergone by the complainant at the hands of the OP.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant which he has spent as he has been compelled to file this complaint before this Forum for vindication of his rights.
In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that the complainant vide application No.17616 dated 03.09.79 got himself registered under New Pattern Registration Scheme-1979 for the allotment of MIG flat. Thereafter, the complainant vide letter dated 20.09.88 applied for conversion of registration from MIG (NPRS-1979) to Vth Self Financing Scheme. The conversion was allowed by the OP vide letter dated 09.01.89. Transfer entry of Rs.5492/- on account of difference of registration money was prepared and file was transferred to SFS Branch for further action. Since, the complainant did not deposit the difference amount of registration, therefore FDR of SFS was not issued. The Vth SFS Scheme has been closed by giving publication in the newspaper on 30.01.02 and 01.04.02. It is submitted that the complainant appeared in the office of Director (H)II and requested that since he could not deposit the difference amount for SFS, therefore his registration under MIG be kept intact and he should be allotted a flat under MIG category. The request of the complainant for allotment of MIG flat under NPRS-1979 was examined by the competent authority but could not be acceded to. A regret letter in this regard was sent to the complainant on 11.01.08 with request to apply for refund of registration money and submit the original Registration papers immediately for refund of registration amount. It is submitted that the MIG Scheme under NPRS, 1979 has also been closed by giving its publicity in the leading newspaper. Thus, the complainant is now entitled only for refund of registration money by furnishing the requisite documents. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
Rejoinder to the written statement of OP has been filed by the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in the evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. O.P. Gupta Director (H)-I has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The complainant has filed the copy of the challan dated 03.09.1979 for an amount of Rs.4500/ as Annexure A-1. The deposit receipt No.130715 dated 03.09.1979 has been filed by the complainant as Annexure A-2. The complainant vide letter dated 20.09.88 requested the OP for conversion of registration from Fifth Registration Scheme on New Pattern 1979 to Self Financing Scheme as Annexure A-3. The OP vide letter dated 24.10.88 informed the complainant to file some documents as Annexure A-4. The OP vide letter dated 09.01.89 informed the complainant that his request for conversation for registration from MIG/NP to SFS has been acceded to. The transfer/adjustment of the registration money from MIG to SFS shall be worked out by Supd. HAU-IV in due course (as Annexure-5). The complainant vide letter dated 24.10.05 requested the OP for allotment of flat in New Pattern Scheme, 1979 (as Annexure-6). The OP filed the application form for registration as Annexure OPW-1/1. The OP vide letter dated 11.01.08 informed the complainant that “ your request has been examined by the competent authority but the same cannot be acceded as Annexure OPW-1/5. The OP filed the newspaper cuttings dated 01.05.04 (NPRS 1979 Scheme). We mark the same as Annexure-A for the purpose of identification. The OP vide news paper cutting 31.03.02 and 01.04.02 regarding SFS closed. We mark the same as Annexure-2 for the purposes of identification. The OP vide public notice dated 31.03.02 and 01.04.02 requested the public to apply for refund as Annexure OPW-1/6.
It is not in dispute that the complainant has applied for an MIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS, 1979) by depositing a sum of Rs.4500/-. Vide challan No.17616 dated 391979 and deposit receipt No.130715 dated 391979. The complainant was not allotted any flat by the OP for nine years. The complainant vide letter dated 20.09.1988 requested the OP for conversion of his registration from New Pattern Scheme to Self Financing Scheme.
Both the parties have filed various judgments. In this case, the complainant filed the application for allotment of the flat, mere application for allotment did not give the complainant, any right to the allotment of the flat. It is well settled that filing of an application for allotment at the highest grant the proposed allottee only a right to be considered and no other higher than that accrues to him.
This question has been examined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das reported in (1994) 4 SCC 225 in which it was held as under:-
“31. Therefore it is after allotment, right may arise as per the contract (Article of Association of Company). But certainly not before allotment. At that stage, he is only a prospective investor (sic in) future goods. The issue was yet to open on 27-4-1993. There is not purchase of goods for a consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. In order to satisfy the requirement of above definition of consumer, it is clear that there must be a transaction of buying goods for consideration under clause 2(1)(d)(i) of the said Act. The definition contemplates the pre-existence of a completed transaction of a sale and purchase. If regard is had to the definition of complaint under the Act, it will be clear that no prospective investor could fall under the Act.”
The Scheme in question was closed in the year 2004. The Central Government in terms of the provisions of the Act or otherwise had no jurisdiction to revive the same. All the authorities under the Act including the Government being the creature of the statute were bound to act within the four corners thereof. A specific grievance was raised by the complainant herein that the action on the part of the OP amounted to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service was pleaded.
In view of the above the complainant has only applied for allotment of flat and he was a prospective buyer only and till the allotment of flat the complainant has not become a consumer.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant is not a “consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 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 10.01.19.
