DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.525/2012
1. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain (Sr. Citizen)
2. Smt. Kamlesh Jain
Both R/o
E-84, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092 ….Complainants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority,
through its Vice-Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 08.10.2012 Date of Order : 06.11.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The prayers of the complainants are to issue directions to the OP to complete the process of conversation to freehold without any further delay, to give them the liberty from the condition of DDA to execute the conveyance deed in the Registrar’s office within the fixed time of 45 days but to execute the conveyance deed subject to their availability in the city, to award Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical discomfort and harassment which they suffered from the hands of OP and OP to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the delayed period beyond 90 days from the actual conversion to freehold on the conversion amount of Rs.243641/- and award Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation and also to fix the responsibilities of erring officials and initiation of departmental proceedings against them. It is submitted that the complainants had purchased plot No.84, Block-E, area measuring 370 Sq. Yds. in the layout plant of Preet Nagar Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd., now known as Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092 and subsequently constructed the house over the aforesaid plot of land with the due sanctioned building plan by the DDA and completed the construction and got an electric connection installed in the premises on 27.02.1986 and occupied it w.e.f. 01.04.1986 and are in possession of the said property ever since. The said property is leasehold and Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA) is the lessor. The seller of the plot in whose favour the property was mutated in the Perpetual Sub Lease by the DDA and was the sub lessee, executed the General Power of Attorney in the name of Rajinder Kumar Jain and Agreement to Sell and Will in the name of Kamlesh Jain. In the month of January, 2012 the complainants purchased a brochure from the OP for Rs.50/- plus VAT in the month of January, 2012 in which it was written that the application for conversion to freehold shall be scrutinized within one month and objections, if any, shall be conveyed and whole process of conversion to freehold shall be completed within 90 days. The complainant No.1 in the capacity of GPA holder of the sub-lessee and the complainant No.2 in the capacity in whose favour the conveyance deed was to be executed applied for conversion from leasehold to freehold in respect of the said property Form No. 155194 and challan No.10177612 which was assigned as application ID 61528 and file No. F12(E-84)/1978/CS dated 09.02.12 duly acknowledged by the OP. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.243641/- including Rs.200/- as processing fee on 09.02.12 with the OP. Even after lapse of 8 months when the OP failed to execute the conveyance deed in their favour the complainants moved an application under the RTI Act to the OP as well as to the Prime Minister Office but to no avail. Hence, this complaint for the above stated prayers.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the electric connection was installed in the premises on 27.02.1986 and it was occupied w.e.f 01.04.1986. As per the terms of the perpetual lease deed dated 14.03.1978 entered into between the OP and Sh. H. R. Batra, the construction on the plot No. E-84, Preet Nagar, CHBS was to be made within a period of 2 years from 04.03.78 as per clause (V) of the perpetual lease deed. It is submitted that in case if the construction is not completed within the stipulated period of time, then the composition fee is required to be paid. The complainants have not placed on the record as to on which date the construction was started and on which date the construction was completed. In this case, the complainants have not submitted form No. D and/or completion certificate to show the date of completion of the construction. Since the date of completion of construction was not supplied, as such the composition of fee as per the policy could not be calculated. It is stated that a sum of Rs.3145/- on account of enhanced ground rent was required to be paid in terms of the clause (V) of the perpetual lease deed but the complainants did not pay the same. The complainant No.1 vide application No. 61528 dated 09.02.12 had applied for conversion of the above said property from leasehold to freehold in favour of the complainant Smt. Kamlesh Jain agreement to sell holder by depositing the conversion fee and required documents. On perusal of the conversion application the following deficiencies were found and conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 07.06.12:-
- Rs.3145/- on account of E.G.R. (Enhanced Ground Rent,
- Form D or Occupancy Certificate
- NOC in original from Society
- Current proof of physical possession in shape of electricity bill.
- Specimen signature and photograph.
It is submitted that instead of furnishing the above required documents the complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.12 which was duly replied on 02.07.12 with a request to furnish the above documents but the complainants failed to submit the copy of form D and completion certificate and rather submitted the copy of the house tax assessment order of MCD. The complainant also sent a letter to the Prime Minister Office which was also duly replied by the OP. Thereafter, the OP vide letter dated 11.10.12 again requested the complainant to submit either ‘form D’ or occupation certificate so that the composition fee could be worked out but, however, till that date the complainants have failed to do so. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainants have filed a rejoinder.
Complainant No.1 has filed his own in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. S. N. Gupta, Director (R.L) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments of the Complainant No.1 and also counsel for the OP and have also gone through the file very carefully.
During the course of proceeding dated 26.08.15 on which date the complainant was not present, it was stated on behalf of the OP that the conveyance deed in respect of the plot in question has already been executed by the OP in favour of the complainant about 1- 1½ years ago. On the next date the complainant appeared and stated that he wanted to pursue the complaint with regard to grant of compensation.
It is evident from the record and the documents filed by the parties that the complainants did not supply the required documents to the OP for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold in time. When the complainants supplied the requisite documents to the OP, the OP accordingly executed the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant. Hence, the OP cannot alone be attributed for the delay occurred in executing the conveyance deed. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with regard to award of compensation 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 06.11.2017.
