DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.588/2010
Sh. Sudhir Mandal
S/o Sh. Chachru Mandal
Jhuggi No.S-59/292,
Gandhi Camp, Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024
At present:
2756, Holambi Kalan,
Metro Vihar, Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Land Management (SEZ)
C-1, Ground Floor, Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi-110023 …...Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 17.09.2010
Date of Order : 30.05.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Undisputed case of the parties is that in lieu of removal of Jhuggi No.S-59/292, Gandhi Camp, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi where the complainant had been residing an alternative plot measuring 18 sq. yds. was assured to be allotted to him at Holambi Kalan, Delhi by the OP; that in furtherance of the letter dated 19.01.04 sent by the OP the complainant deposited Rs.2000 through bankers cheque No.134501 dated 29.08.05
(Central Bank of India) as cost of a corner plot; that the OP is still maintaining his file vide file No.F-11(23105/LM/SEZ/ DD/LM/SEZ because the OP has failed to allot an alternative plot even after lapse of 5 years and that in response to RTI application the OP vide letter dated 12.03.10 informed the complainant that at present no plot is available for relocation of Jhuggi dwellers in LM/SEZ and as and when the plots are made available by the Engineering Department, the case of the complainant will be considered for relocation. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:
“(a) pass an order directing the respondent to allot alternative plot to the complainant.
(b) pass an award in the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental harassment.
(c) pass an award in the tune of Rs.60,000/- towards the rent expenditure.
(d) pass an award in the tune of Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of litigation.”
In the reply to the complaint the OP has stated as under:-
“2. It is submitted that a jhuggi cluster at Lajpat Nagar was removed during Jan/Feb 2004 and total evictees of the cluster were 768 and out of 768, 694 squatters were eligible for relocation & out of 694 eligible squatters, 477 were allotted 18 sq. mtrs & 12.5 mtrs plots at Holmbi Kalan according to their entitlement. Rest of 217 eligible squatters are not allotted any plots. Since the petitioners were eligible for plots and no general plots were available as such the petitioner could not relocate any plot. As soon as the plots are made available by the engineering Wing they will be located accordingly to their eligibility.”
It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. S. N. Gupta, Director (L.M-1) 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 advanced on behalf of the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
It is for the first time that in the written argument the OP has taken a plea that the complaint is time barred. We must say at once that the complaint is not time barred. Since, the letter in response to the RTI application had been sent to the complainant vide letter dated 12.03.10 that was the date when the fresh cause of action arose in favour of the complainant for filing the present complaint. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is not time barred.
It is further argued in the written arguments by the OP that the reliefs sought by the complainant cannot be decided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant is not a consumer as defined U/s 2 (1) (d) of the said Act and also that there is no hiring of service as defined in section 2 (1) (o) of the said Act. The contention raised on behalf of the OP for the first time seems to be very attractive but it does not carry any weight. Jhuggi of the complainant had been demolished in Lajpat Nagar and he was to be given an alternative plot of 18 sq. yds. at Holambi Kalan, New Delhi for which the complainant had also been made to deposit Rs.20000/- in the office of the OP. Therefore, the OP had agreed to provide service to the complainant as defined in section 2 (1) (o) of the Act. The complainant is definitely a consumer as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of the said act. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the said contention and reject it.
From the admission of the OP and the pleadings of the parties it becomes crystal clear that despite the assurance given by the OP to the complainant for allotting an alternative plot of 18 sq. yds. in Holambi Kalan in lieu of his demolished Jhuggi in Lajpat Nagar and making him to deposit Rs.20000/- in the office of the OP, the OP has failed to discharge its duty. This is the internal matter between the Engineering Department of the OP with other departments. Neither the complainant nor this forum is concerned with any such internal policy. The criteria of allotting the alternative plot to 477 persons so far has not been described by the OP. The rest of the eligible squatters and especially the complainant who has approached this forum cannot be left at the godly mercy of the officials of the OP. Sometimes, the officials of the OP act in a manner as if they are the supreme authority and there is nobody else to supervise their work or activity. Therefore, such a conduct on the part of the officials of the OP is neither appreciable nor can be endorsed by this forum.
This is a case of clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant had been dislocated from his Jhuggi in Lajpat Nagar by assuring him that he would be allotted an alternative plot at Holambi Kalan. Years together have passed but the OP has not fulfilled its promise. Thus, by adopting such type of practice the OP gives an opportunity to such dislocated squatters to again occupy government land at some other place and to create another slum. Therefore, the OP must be held responsible for all this malpractice.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to allot an alternative plot of 18 sq. yds. at Holambi Kalan, New Delhi or any other place on the same price of Rs.20000/- within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order without any fail. We also award Rs.30000/- in lumpsum to the complainant for mental agony, cost of litigation and other expenses etc. The said amount be paid to the complainant within the same period of 6 months failing which OP shall become liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
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 30.05.17.
