DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.1140/2005
Smt. Shakuntala Singh
W/o Sh. Balwant Singh
R/o H-6756, Block 10, Gali No.3,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110018 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
through its Chairman
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. Colony,
New Delhi
2. Deputy Director (CE)
Delhi Development Authority
Commercial Estate Branch,
Vikas Sadan, INA Colony,
New Delhi ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 30.12.05 Date of Order : 08.07.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Facts gathered from the complaint and the connected documents reveal that the Complainant applied for allotment of commercial flat form category-II under the “Second Self Financing Scheme (Commercial Flats), 1985 of the OP by submitting application form and paying Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.1389 on 05.09.1985. She further states that the OP issued letter in 1992 inter-alia informing the registration of the Complainant concerning the allotment of the flat. In the said letter of OP, it was specifically mentioned that the estimated price per sq. meter of such type of premises would be about Rs.16,488/- with further promise that the possession of the commercial flat would be handed over to successful applicants w.e.f. August, 1993 onwards. The Complainant in the year 1992 informed the OP about her preference of location and the place (Copy Annexure A-3). The Complainant had been waiting for hearing from the OP as to the allotment of the commercial flat in her favour but was shocked to receive a letter dated 17.02.2000 annexed as Annexure A-4 inter-alia stating that the Complainant had not submitted her option for the place. Immediately the Complainant replied the said letter and again inter-alia reiterated that she had opted for category-I flat. The said letter is marked as Annexure A-5. Thereafter the Complainant was for the first time informed of the said demand notice that she was allotted a SFS Commercial flat bearing No.105, measuring 56.65 sq. meter situated in District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi. This flat was said to have been allotted to her under draw of the lot held on 07.07.2000 (copy Annexure A-6). The copy of the demand notice served upon the Complainant by the OP is Annexure A-7. In the said demand notice, the OP claimed a total premium of the flat of Rs.16,03,195/- plus other charges after adjusting the initial deposit of Rs.20,000/- plus interest accrued thereon. The Complainant was required to deposit the whole amount within 30 days from the issuance of said letter. She further states that the OP sent “impugned demand in the prohibited sum of Rs.16,03,195/- to the Complainant for the said commercial flat”. The Complainant against the aforesaid prohibited demand of the OP preferred CWP No.7147/2000 before the Delhi High Court. The Complainant deposited Rs.2,62,006/- on 15.12.2000 as per the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 07.12.2000. After the detailed hearing, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the said writ petition vide its order dated 16.01.04. The Complainant filed LPA No.805/04 before the Hon’ble DB of the Delhi High Court which was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the Complainant for taking other remedy available under the law. The Complainant further states that the OP has already collected total cost of Rs.2,62,006/- by 15.12.2000 from the Complainant. It is stated as under:-
“17…….The Contractual agreement was that the Respondents had to handover possession of the flat to the Complainant latest by August, 1988. But the respondents had been taking time to increase the cost and as late as 1999 informed the Complainant to pay Rs.16,03,195/- in lieu of normal and reasonable rate prevailing in 1985 to the Respondents. Therefore, this prohibitive illegal demand was for making unjust enrichment from the Complainant.”
Thereafter the Complainant has filed the complaint before this Forum on 30.12.05 mainly contesting that “ the statutory body like the DDA made the statutory scheme, 1985. There was no contractual/contracts between the Complainant and the DDA at the time of framing of the scheme. The cost of the commercial flat was not calculated in consultation with the intending purchaser. Further the cost of the flat was 8 times more of the original cost which was arbitrary, illegal, high-handed and discriminatory”. Making various allegations against the OP the Complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum by praying as following:-
- Direct the OPs to hand over possession of the commercial flat No.2F/105 (area 56.65 sq. meters) in Distt. Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi allotted to the Complainant on the original cost for 56.65 sq. meters and further direct the OPs to charge @ Rs.530/- per sq. ft. for additional area.
- Direct the OPs to quash the exorbitant and prohibited demand of Rs.16,03,195 as raised by the OPs on the Complainant.
- Direct the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lacs for causing mental harassment and agony to the Complainant.
- Direct the OPs to pay cost of the proceedings to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
The OPs have filed written statement and stated that the complaint is liable for outright rejection on the sole ground that the Complainant is not a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act as the flat in question is to be used for commercial purpose. It is stated as under:-
“ 1-3…….The complainant registered herself under the scheme vide application No.1389 and deposited E.M of Rs.20,000/- on 10.09.85. The delay in progress of scheme was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 20.12.91 and options were demanded for flat at Laxmi Nagar and Janak Puri Distt. Centre with categorywise performance. It was also intimated vide letter dated 31.12.92 that the estimate cost, size and locality of commercial flats would be announced from time to time. It was also intimated that no specific building under the 85 IInd SFS scheme has yet been taken up. However, DDA is in a position to provide some flats in Janak puri and Laxmi Nagar Distt/Centre which are being constructed independently of the scheme under which you are registered. These flats are likely to be available for possession in August 93 onwards.”
It is submitted that the demand letter dated 10.10.2000 was issued for payment regarding three installments as intimated vide letter dated 31.12.1992. It is further stated as under:-
“17-19……. It is submitted that the complainant deposited only Rs.2,82,006/- vide challan No.307930 dated 15.12.2000 against the demand of Rs.16,10,453/-. Therefore, the reminder of balance demand was issued to complainant on 30.11.2005 and due to non payment the allotment was cancelled and intimated to the complainant on 18.01.06.”
OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In its rejoinder the Complainant has not denied the factum of commercial flat and has not indicated that the said flat was being bought for her source of livelihood.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Yashpal Garg, Director (CE) 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.
We straightaway advert to the issue, whether the relief is admissible to the Complainant as prayed for?
Admittedly, in the complaint, the Complainant has unequivocally stated that “she submitted application form together with the money receipt No.1389 in the sum of Rs.20,000/- for allotment of commercial flat form category-II as per Annexure A-2 (Colly).” Nowhere in the complaint she has stated that the said commercial flat had been booked by her for the purpose of earning her livelihood. The Complainant had already invoked writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court vide W.P. (C) No. 7147/2000 and LPA No. 805/04 which have been dismissed. The questions involved in the lis are complicated questions of law and facts which cannot be decided without recording the evidence of the parties. Thus, in our considered opinion, this Forum is not competent to decide the controversy involved in the complaint in a summary manner. The fixation of price of the commercial flat in question is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid twin grounds of not being a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the jurisdiction of this Forum we do not find any reason to allow the complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss it. Parties are left to bear their own 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.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 08.07.16.
