DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 615 /2010
Sh. Jai Kumar (Senior Citizen)
s/o Late Sh. B.C.Appachu, 74 years old
No. 624, 2nd Main Road
Indiranagar 1st Stage
Banglore 560038 ….Complainant
Versus
The Commissioner(Housing)
Delhi Development Authority
“D” Block, 1st Floor
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi 110023 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 28.09.10 Date of Order : 16.03.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
According to the Complainant he got his name registered with the OP for the allotment of a flat under MIG category vide his application No. 143746 dated 21.09.79 in response to the OP’s inviting applications for allotment of residential flats to be constructed by the OP under the Registration Scheme on New Pattern 1979 (MIG, LIG and Janta Category of Flats) and he deposited Rs. 4500/- as registration amount vide receipt No. 139926 dated 21.09.1979 and that on 01.05.1980 OP issued the certificate of registration bearing No.12708. The Complainant shifted his residence alongwith his family to Bangalore and he intimated this fact to the OP vide registered letter dated 17.07.1992 and the OP wrote a letter in June, 1993; that the Complainant sent a letter dated 20.11.2002 intimating another change of address for which the OP sent an intimation dated 24.12.2002 confirming his changed address as No. 1006/B, 17th “D” Cross, Bangalore 560038. According to the Complainant as there was further change of his address he sent a letter dated 19.06.2003 to the OP under certificate of posting. He personally went to the office of the OP to inquire about the progress of his application and ultimately he sent a registered letter dated 03.12.2007 to the OP which was followed by a reminder on 01.08.2008 sent to the OP by RPAD. According to the Complainant, he came to know that a flat had been allotted in his favour but the same had been cancelled and re- allotted in somebody else’s favour which necessitated him to write a letter on 11.09.2008 by speed post to OP and also Lt. Governor of Delhi on 17.10.2008. The Complainant personally went to the office of the OP and after verification he found the following noting in the file of the OP:-
“In this case the change of address was made on 18.12.02 and the flat was allotted in 2003 in Jahangirpuri but the demand letter was issued by the DDA on the old address. Due to lapse on the part of the DDA the allotment was cancelled and re-allotment was approved by the Commissioner (Housing). He will be allotted a flat in Jahangirpuri on the same floor and same terms and conditions in due course”.
It is stated that he wrote letters to the Lt. Governor of Delhi and he also personally visited the office of the OP and the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 09.11.09; that when he went to the office of the OP on 14.12.2009 and held discussion with the Commissioner (H) it was revealed to him that the flat allotment order had been sent to the complainant at his address at No.1011-B, 17th Cross, Indira Nagar, 2nd stage, Bangalore but the original office file was not readily available and hence the dispatch of the said allotment letter could not be confirmed. Thereafter, he received a letter bearing No.317 (2)/JH/NP/255 dated 09.02.10 from the OP intimating that his request had been examined by the Competent Authority but it did not accede to by directing the complainant to apply for refund of the registration money. The complainant applied for information on 31.03.10 under the RTI Act which was followed by a reminder sent on 15.05.10 through registered post. The apprehension of the complainant is that his allotment had been cancelled without issuing any show cause notice to him and the OP had also not served the alleged cancellation order and thus the OP committed deficiency in service and is liable for compensation and that the OP also committed deficiency in service in not issuing the allotment letter. According to him, the alleged cancellation of allotment without issuing any prior intimation or without issuing show cause notice is contrary to law and rules of allotment. Hence, he has filed the present complaint for directing the OP:-
“(i) to allot a flat under MIG category under Pattern (HUDCO 1979) against Registration No.12708/MIG dated 01.05.1980 of the Complainant in Jahangirpuri on the same floor and on same terms and conditions or in any other suitable locality under the same and similar conditions as it was at the time of application,
(ii) to grant compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) for delay and for causing mental agony and physical discomfort,
(iii) to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards travelling and related expenses incurred by the Complainant during his 20-30 visits to Delhi,
(iv) to grant cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/- and grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.”
In the written statement the OP has inter-alia stated that the complainant was allotted an MIG flat No.297, Jahangirpuri, Delhi through the computerized draw held on 31.12.02; that the allotment-cum-demand letter dated 24th March to 31st March 2003 was sent to the complainant at “1006-B 17th D, Cross Indira Nagar, Second Stage, Benaglore-38” which did not come back undelivered which proves that the same was delivered to the complainant. It is denied that the letter dated 19.06.03 was sent by the complainant to the OP. It is stated that the UPC cannot be said to be a valid document of service to the OP. It is stated that the alleged letter dated 19.06.03 was neither received in the office of the OP. It is stated that since the demand letter was duly received by or on behalf of the Complainant and he did not pay the amount as per the terms and conditions of the demand-cum- allotment letter, the allotment of the flat in question stood cancelled on account of non-response/non-payment. It is stated that before cancellation of the allotment letter, a show cause notice was issued to the Complainant on 11.02.04 at the same address but the same was received back undelivered from the Postal Authorities with the remarks “Es number pur es naam ka vyakti nahi rehta” and the allotment was finally cancelled vide cancellation letter dated 05.04.04. It is stated that the cancellation letter was also sent to “1006-B, 17th, D-Cross Indira Nagar, 2nd Stage, Bengalore-38” on 05.04.04. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder the complainant has inter-alia pleaded that the OP had sent an allotment letter-cum-demand note vide letter No. M.317 (2)2003-NPRS at the address “1011 B-17th D Cross, Indiranagar 2nd Stage Bangalore-560038” which was later on tampered by HAND as “1006” in order to deny his rightful allotment of the flat for which he was waiting for the last 32 years.
The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. D. K. Gupta Director (H-1) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
The original DDA file in respect of the flat in question has been called from the office of the OP and kept with the Forum on 16.02.17.
We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have also carefully perused the Forum file as well as the original DDA file.
In our considered opinion, the questions which have to be decided by this Forum are, (i) Whether the complainant had infact sent any intimation regarding change of his address to the OP under certificate of posting on 19.06.03 and, if so, whether the same had been duly received in the office of the OP?, (ii) Whether despite receipt of the intimation with regard to change in address vide letter dated 19.06.03 the OP still issued the demand-cum- allotment letter to the complainant at his previous address “No.1011-B, 17th Cross, Indira Nagar, 2nd stage, Bangalore” or whether the said address had been later on manipulated as “1006” by HAND by the OP. If the answers to these questions are in affirmative, then the complainant must win the case and will be declared entitled to the allotment of a new flat by the OP DDA. However, if the answers to these questions are in negative, then the complainant shall become a looser and his complaint will be dismissed.
Intimation of change in address by the complainant to the OP on 17.07.1992 through registered letter and vide letter dated 20.11.02 is not in dispute. Vide his letter dated 20.11.02 the complainant had intimated his new changed address as “No.1006-B, 17th Cross, Indira Nagar, 2nd stage, Bangalore”. Thus, the complainant had intimated the change of his address for the first time vide letter dated 17.07.1992 through registered letter. Copy of the letter dated 17.07.1992 is Annexure-5. Annexure P-7 is the copy of the letter dated 20.11.02 which had been delivered in person because the words “delivered by person” have been written on it. The receipt of the letter dated 20.11.02 was acknowledged by the OP vide letter No. F9(12708) Address/79/NP dated 24.12.02 (copy Annexure-X). Therefore, in our considered opinion, when the OP had acknowledged the information regarding receipt of the letters containing the new addresses on two occasions there was no reason for the OP not to acknowledge the letter dated 19.06.03 if the same had been received in the office of the OP. Secondly, by allegedly sending the letter dated 19.06.03 the complainant had been intimating a very important fact to the OP. Therefore, in the normal circumstances, he would have sent the said letter to the OP either under registered AD cover as done by him by sending the letter dated 17.07.1992 or delivered in person as was done by him while giving information vide his letter dated 20.11.02. Copy of the letter dated 19.06.03 has been filed by the complainant as Annexure-9 (P9). The same is shown to have been sent to the OP under certificate of posting. The copy of the UPC has been filed as Annexure-10 (P10). Vide this UPC the complainant had allegedly sent letters to two persons i.e. the Chairman, Godrej Company and the Commissioner (Housing) of the OP. The stamp of the post office is affixed at two places, one on the stamp and the second on the bottom. The address of the Commissioner (Housing) seems to have been added after affixation of the postal stamp in the bottom of the UPC and this seems to be a naked truth. Therefore, it appears that the Complainant himself has manipulated the UPC. Otherwise, both the addresses should have been written in the same symmetry. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant has failed to prove that he had infact intimated the OP about change of his address from the earlier one to 624, 2nd Main Road, Indira Nagar, Ist Stage, Bangalore-38.
The complainant has filed copies of the letters dated 03.12.07, 01.08.08, 11.09.08 as Annexure 11 (P11), Annexure-13 (P13) and Annexure-15 (P14) respectively which had been sent by him to the OP by RPAD or speed post. Therefore, it looks very strange that the complainant had sent the letter dated 19.06.03 to the OP under UPC. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that any such intimation had ever been given by him to the OP.
Now, we proceed to decide the objection of the complainant that the allotment letter for the block dates 24.03.03 - 31.03.03 had been sent to his old address i.e. 1011-B, 17th D, Cross Indira Nagar, Second Stage, Banaglore-38. The copy of the demand-cum- allotment letter has been filed on behalf of the OP as Ex. OPW/2. It contains an overwriting. The office copy of the said letter has been placed in the original DDA File. It is correct that the figure 1011 which is typed written has been cut and the figure 1006 has been written by Hand. Two other additions have also been made in the said letter by HAND. The figure “38” and the last digit of Pin Code No. have also been written by HAND. All the three corrections have been made with the same ink and the same hand writing. Therefore, we are not ready to believe that the officials of the OP had malafidely over written the figure “1006” in place of typed figure “1011” in the demand-cum- allotment letter. The original returned envelope bearing the show cause notice has been placed in the original DDA file. The said letter had been returned back in the office of the OP with the above stated endorsement in Hindi. Copy of the show cause notice has been filed on the record by the OP as Ex. OPW/3 and the copy of the returned envelope as Ex. OPW/4 (Colly).
From a perusal of the original DDA file it becomes crystal clear that the correspondence made by the complainant with the office of the Lt. Governor of Delhi had been given due response and enquiry had been made into the matter and after calling for the proof in respect of the delivery of demand-cum- allotment letter dated 24.03.03-31.03.03 the OSD to Lt. Governor made the following noting:
“ Hon’ble Lt. Governor has perused the file.
Request of Shri Jai Kumar for restoration and allotment of an alternative flat cannot be acceded to. The registration amount may be refunded on production of requisite documents as per rules. Shri Jai Kumar may be informed accordingly.
Sd/-
31/12/09
(Sanjeev Mittal)
OSD to Lt. Governor”
Therefore, even the Lt. Governor of Delhi was not satisfied with the stand taken by the complainant. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let the original DDA file be kept in the safe custody till the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal.
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 16.03.17.
