DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 45/2012
Sh. Raj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal,
C-602, Veena CGHS Ltd.
Plot No.5D, Sector-22, Dwarka,
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1.The Commissioner( Housing LIG)
Delhi Development Authority
A Block, Vikas Sadan, Delhi.
2.Asstt. Director, LIG(Housing)
Delhi Development Authority,
D Block, Vikas Sadan, Delhi. …...Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 03.02.2012
Date of Order : 15.05.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The brief facts of the case are that the mother of the Complainant Smt. Lakshmi Devi had applied for LIG Flat under NPRS Scheme with requisite fees and the registration No. of the Application was 23649 and priority No. was 41131. Before draw of the flat, family of the Complainant changed their address from A/129, Qutern Line Kingsway Camp to B-108, Nehru Vihar, Near Timarpur, Delhi. On 7.02.1986, the mother of the Complainant informed the OPs for change of address in writing. The mother of the complainant died before the draw. LRs of Late Smt. Lakshami Devi were in touch with OPs to verify about the draw time to time. The Complainant came to know through reliable source regarding the draw. Office of the OPs admitted that a LIG Flat No. 429, IIIrd Floor, Sector -14, Pocket –I, Phase-II Dwarka, New Delhi had been allotted to the mother of the Complainant in the draw held on 28.03.03. The demand-cum-allotment letter was also issued at A/129, Qutran Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. The allotment of the flat was cancelled vide letter dated 11.03.04 on account of non-response from allottee side and the said flat was re-allotted to the next wait listed registrant. After knowing the facts regarding draw, allotment and cancellation and re-allotment of the said flat, the complainant sent two letters to the OPs but the OPs sent a letter to submit mutation documents for refund of registration money. The office of the OPs accepted deficiency in service inasmuch as she intimated new address of complainant was not recorded in the computer system and as such communication regarding draw and cancellation was furnished at old residence of the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 04.11.11 but no reply was received from OPs. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complaint has been filed for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OPs to allot a flat in the same location and value to the complainant,
- Direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
In the written statement the OPs have inter-alia stated that the complainant has filed this complaint without impleading all the legal heirs of Smt. Luxmi Devi and as such the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and liable to be dismissed. The complaint is also hopelessly barred by time under the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The NPRS Scheme under which Smt. Luxmi Devi had got herself registered has been closed after due notice in the newspapers. Since the scheme has already been closed the present complaint seeking the relief for allotment of the flat is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It is submitted that the complainant has not stated as to in what capacity the complainant is residing in the property No.B/108, Nehru Vihar, near Timarpur, Delhi. It is denied that the mother of the complainant informed the OPs about the change of the address on 07.02.1986. The letter dated 07.02.86 was never received by the OPs. It appears that the complainant in order to make out a false evidence has forged the said letter. The NPRS Scheme, 1979 was launched and released the brochure. She made an application on 25.09.1979. She deposited a sum of Rs.1500/- towards the registration money. She was assigned priority No.41131. On the turn of priority Ms. Luxmi Devi was allotted flat No.429, 3rd Floor, Pocket-1, Sector-14, Group-II, Dwarka, New Delhi on cash down basis through computerized draw held on 28.03.03. The result of the draw was published in the newspapers and the same was displayed on the notice board of the OPs and the same was also available on the internet site of the OPs. The demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to all the addresses with the block date 30.04.03-05.05.03 to deposit the cost of the flat as demanded in the said letter and submit the required documents on or before 01.11.03 failing which there was automatic cancellation. The demand-cum-allotment letter was received undelivered with the remarks “no such person”. The demand-cum-allotment letter was again sent to the complainant at her same address and was received undelivered with the above said postal remark. After expiry of the last date of payment the allotment was cancelled due to non-payment. The cancellation letter dated 11.03.04 was sent to Smt. Luxmi Devi with a request to apply for refund of the registration money but the same was also returned with the same remark. A press note was also published in this regard. It is submitted that as per the Complainant himself the LRs of Smt. Luxmi Devi kept themselves in touch with the OPs to verify about the draw from time to time and thus the complainant was well aware about the allotment made by the OPs in favour of Smt. Luxmi Devi. It is submitted that the legal heirs after the death of Smt. Luxmi Devi did not apply for mutation till the cancellation. After the allotment of the flat was cancelled Sh. P. C. Verma (another son of the deceased) vide letter dated 06.05.05 submitted that her mother had booked a flat and got allotment of the flat under reference. He falsely alleged that she had intimated about the change of address vide letter dated 03.02.86 though he could not file any document in this regard even after letter and reminder sent to him. Sh. P. C. Verma appeared in the public hearing on 13.06.07 but did not submit the required document for mutation for refunding the money. Later on Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Luxmi Devi vide letter dated 13.02.07 submitted the documents for mutation. In response to the above OPs vide letter dated 03.08.07 requested the Complainant to submit the original documents of registration but he failed to do so. Sh. P. C. Verma vide letter dated 29.07.08 requested for restoration of allotment. The OPs vide letter dated 02.09.08 informed him that his request for restoration was examined by the competent authority but could not be acceded to. He was advised to submit the documents for refund of registration money already demanded vide letter dated 03.08.07. Neither Sh. P. C. Verma nor the complainant submitted the complete documents for mutation due to which the mutation of the registration could not be made. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for allotment of any flat or entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder and has not denied the averments made in the written statement.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. A. K. Bisht, Director (H) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the complainant’s mother Smt. Luxmi Devi had applied for LIG flat under NPRS Scheme and deposited Rs.1500/- and her priority No. was 41131. Before the draw could be held mother of the complainant vide letter dated 07.02.1986 informed the OP regarding change of address. The same was received by the OP on 07.02.1986 (Ex. C/3). The mother of the complainant died on 03.09.1994 i.e. before the draw. The OP sent demand-cum-allotment letter on 28.03.03 to the complainant at the old address wherein it was demanded to deposit the cost of the flat on or before 01.11.03 failing which the flat was to be automatically cancelled. The said letter was received undelivered with the remarks “no such person”. The OP vide letter dated 11.03.04 sent a letter to Smt. Luxmi Devi with a request to apply for refund of the registration money but the same was returned with the remark “no such person”. It appears that the legal heirs after the death of Smt. Luxmi Devi did not apply for mutation till the cancellation of the flat. Sh. P. C. Verma, son of Smt. Luxmi Devi contacted the OP and submitted the mutation papers to the OP. Sh. P. C. Verma vide letter dated 28.07.08 (copy Ex. 11/C) requested the OP to restore the allotment of flat.
From the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, it stands proved on the record that Sh. P. C. Verma was asked to submit the proof of change of address by his mother Late Smt. Luxmi Devi but, however, he did not do so despite putting his appearance in a public meeting held on 13.6.07. Therefore, his request was turned down. It is only after the rejection of his request by the OP that the present complainant who is the brother of Sh. P. C. Verma has filed the present complaint in the year 2012. Thus, the complaint is highly time barred. Once the application moved by one of the LRs had been rejected by the DDA on legal or illegal grounds immediate remedy was available to Sh. P. C. Verma and the other LRs of the deceased but, however, the law could not and did not permit them including the complainant to wait for a considerable period of about 3 and half years and then to file the present complaint through one of her another LRs who is the complainant herein. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is time bared and we also 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 15.05.17.
