DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 817/2008
Sh. Shamsher Singh
S/o Sohan Singh
6, Badrinath Apts, Plot-18, Sec-4,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 78 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
through Commissioner (H)
Vikas Sadan, INA Colony,
New Delhi - 23 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 11.12.2008 Date of Order : 23.07.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
From the perusal of the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties the case, in nutshell, is that the complainant had been allotted SFS flat No. BE-007, Category – II, Third Floor, Janakpuri vide allotment letter dated 23.5.1994 and revised demand letter dated 12.10.2000 (sic) and thereafter the complainant filed CC No. 2347/94 before the District Forum-II which was decided vide order dated 22.4.1996. OP filed appeal No. A-463/1996 against the order dated 22.4.1996 before the State Commission which was decided vide order dated 2.9.2004 and amended order dated 16.2.2005. Vide order dated 2.9.2004 the State Commission had directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,51,450/- (amended order) within one month with the OP and directed the OP to deliver the possession of the flat within one month. However, the complainant was issued first possession letter on 18.1.2006 and the 2nd possession letter on 22.3.2006 despite the fact that the flat was lying vacant unattended since 1991 in a very bad shape and required extensive repairs as detailed in the complaint but feeling depressed the complainant took the possession of the flat on 10.1.2007 on “As is where is” basis and signed all the documents. According to the complainant, the repairs require minimum expenses of Rs. 1 Lakh. It is pleaded that the OP charges 15% interest from the allottees on delayed payments and, hence, the OP must pay 15% interest to him on delayed possession of 21 months and 19 days. Therefore vide this complaint, complainant has prayed to issue directions to the OP to pay the interest @15% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs. 3,51,450/- amounting to Rs. 92,255/- for 21 months’ delayed possession and restoration charges to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh and legal expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.
In the written statement, the OP has taken various objections. Paras 4 & 5 of the preliminary objections are relevant and the same are reproduced as hereunder:
“4. That the complainant is not entitled for alleged interest on delayed possession and alleged flat restoration charges, Legal expenses as per prayer of the complaint and liable for outright rejection on the ground that the issue of possession of flat was already decided by the Hon’ble State Commission and the complainant is barred under law to file the fresh complaint on the same issue which has already been decided by the Hon’ble State Commission.
- That as per order dated 2.4.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Forum the complainant on 11.1.2007 made a signed statement before the Hon’ble Forum that he was satisfied and the case be closed. Now the complainant is barred under law to file the fresh complaint on the same issue in which he has already signed a statement before the Hon’ble Forum stating therein that he was satisfied and the case be closed.”
Other averments made in the complaint are controverted. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder, the case of the complainant is that the present complaint relates to a fresh cause of action and deficiency in service.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. O.P. Gupta, Director (Housing) has been filed on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have also carefully perused the record.
We do not want to burden our order with lengthy discussion. It is, no doubt, true that the OP did not handover the possession of the flat in question to the complainant within the stipulated period of one month as per the directions issued by the State Commission. However, copy of order dated 2.4.2008 passed by this forum in case No. 821/05 titled in Sh. Shamsher Singh Vs DDA has been filed as Ex. OPW1/2 (colly) on behalf of the OP from a perusal of which we find that the above order of the State Commission has been discussed. However, it finds mention in the said order that the OP has complied with the order of the State Commission. On 11.1.2007, the complainant herein made a signed statement that he was satisfied and the case be closed. It appears that the case was closed. Thereafter, he moved an application for reopening of the case closed on 11.1.2007. In the order dated 2.4.2008, the Forum felt not inclined to grant any further relief to the applicant (complainant herein) and the application was disposed of. Therefore, in our considered opinion the question of award of any interest on the amount of Rs. 3,51,450/- for delayed possession cannot now be re-agitated in the present complaint as the complaint is barred under law of estoppels.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it 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 23.07.16.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 817/08
23.7.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
