DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM II
Udyog Sadan, C 22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi 110016.
Case No. 583/07
Shri Ved Parkash,
S/o Sh. Gautam Singh
R/o 6089/2, Dev Nagar
Karol Bagh
New Delhi 110005 ….Complainant
Versus
- Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
- The Asstt. Director (MIG),
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi …Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 15.05.2007 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
S.S. Fonia, Member
Facts gathered from the complaint and other documents reveal that the complainant applied to the OP for MIG flat in Ambedkar Awas Yojana vide application No. 281 dated 29.12.89. He was registered under priority No. 5726. The complainant had been visiting the office of the OPs since middle April 2003 to inquire into the matter about the allotment of flat but every time he was told that proper intimation will be given to him by post at proper time. The complainant states that he was suffering from the kidney failure and suffered lot of hardship due to unwarranted attitude of the officials of the OPs. The complainant wrote a letter dated 15.5.2004 to the OP which was received by them vide receipt No. REC/H/04/11412. Having waited long for reply of said letter, complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 29.12.2004 from the OP mentioning about the cancellation of allotment of Flat No. 206, Sector 13, Pocket B, Phase II, Dwarka, New Delhi on the ground that the allotment letter dated 7.01.2003 had been sent to him. The complainant alleges that the said allotment letter dated 7.1.2003 was never sent to the complainant and without intimating the factum of the allotment of the flat in question i.e. Flat No. 206, Sector 13, Pocket B, Phase II, Dwarka, New Delhi. The OPs arbitrarily cancelled the allotment in favour of the complainant. After receiving aforesaid letter of cancellation from the OPs the complainant sent a letter dated 10.1.2005 to the OPs requesting to send fresh allotment/demand cum allotment letter with regard to the flat in question but the OPs failed to give fresh allotment. The complainant states that the said allotment letter was sent at the wrong address at Dilshad Garden, Delhi which address was never given by the complainant to the OPs. On 21.2.2005 the complainant sent a letter to the OPs making it clear that the allotment letter was not sent at the address of the complainant but it was sent wrongly by the OPs at Dilshad Garden Delhi and again requested the OPs to send fresh demand cumallotment letter in favour of the complainant at the proper address of the complainant. However, the OPs did not do the needful but sent a letter dated 7.9.2006 asking the complainant to get the refund of the registration amount. The complainant alleges that the OPs with some ulterior motive did not send the allotment letter at the address given in the registration form and intentionally posted the same at the address of Dilshad Garden, Delhi which is not the address of the complainant. Blaming the OPs for negligency in performing their duties and committing deficiency in service by not allotting a flat to the complainant despite various requests the complainant has invoked jurisdiction of this forum to direct the OPs to allot a MIG flat in his favour and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ for mental agony, negligence and harassment.
The OPs have filed reply denying the allegations and stated that the demand cum allotment letter was sent to the complainant on 30.12.2002 7.1.2003 at two addresses i.e. 11 A, Pkt B, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi 95 and 6089/2, Dev Nagar, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi but the demand cum allotment letter was received back un delivered with the postal remarks No such person . Therefore, allotment of the flat in question was cancelled on account of non response/non payment vide letter dated 29.12.2004 and he was requested to apply for refund by furnishing the original documents. However, the complainant failed to deposit the requisite documents despite issue of another letter dated 25.2.2005. Accordingly, they have pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed rejoinder denying that demand cum allotment letter was sent to the complainant at two addresses as mentioned in the reply. He has rather reiterated that the demand cum allotment letter was sent by the OPs only at Dilshad Garden, Delhi address which was received back with the postal remarks No such person living at the address . The complainant has reiterated that the address of Dilshad Garden was never the address of the complainant and he never supplied this address to the OP. He has further asserted that in the application form of the complainant, the address clearly mentions 6089/02, Dev Nagar, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The complainant has categorically stated that during the month of Feb., 2005 he personally went to the office of the OP and perused the record and he found on the documents that actual address of the complainant was cut down by the officials of the OP and another address of Dilshad Garden had been mentioned. After that the complainant sent a letter dated 21.2.2005 to the OPs making it clear to them that demand cum allotment letter was sent by the OPs at Dilshad Garden and not at the address of Karol Bagh and accordingly requested them to issue fresh allotment letter in favour of the complainant.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. He relied upon documents Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/5. On the other hand, Sh. B.B. Kundal, Director (H) II of OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit relying upon documents Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/7.
Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
We have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed before us very carefully.
Now, we straightway advert to the issue, whether the relief prayed for is admissible or not?
Additional documents were filed on behalf of the complainant on 16.5.2011. From a perusal of these documents it becomes abundantly clear that the same are the copies of documents/notings of the OP DDA obtained under the RTI Act. Therefore, being the copies of the documents/notings of the OPs themselves their authenticity is beyond any reasonable doubt.
It will be seen from note at page 10/N that demand cum allotment letter vide block dated 30.12.2002 7.1.2003 was sent at 11 A, Pkt B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 95 (photocopy of register is placed at P 65/C) whereas the applicant had filled up his address in the form as 6089/2, Dev Nagar, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi – 110005. The facts/reasons are not known for sending the D A L on the address of Dilshad Garden. Due to non response, the allotment as well as registration were cancelled on 10.3.2004 and the cancellation conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 29.12.2004 at page 18/C. Noting dated 24.10.2005 inter alia records as under:
Kindly refer the minute dated 6/10/2005 of Director (H) II regarding checking from the Awas by DD (system). In this regard, it is submitted that the DD (System) has intimated that the particulars of Sh. Ved Prakash vide priority no. 5726 and already allotted a flat on 29.11.2002 which detail placed on P 17C.
In this regard, it is submitted that the applicant Sh. Ved Prakash had applied for allotment of MIG flat under AMBEDKAR AWAS YOJNA 1989 scheme through application no. 281. On his turn a MIG flat bearing no. 206, IInd floor, Ph 2, Pkt. II, Sector 13 in Dwarka was allotted to him through draw held on 29.11.2002 on Hire Purchase Basis. The Demand cum allotment letter vide block dated 30/12/2002 7/1/2003 was sent at 11 A, Pkt B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 95 (photocopy of register is placed at P 65/C) whereas the applicant had filled up his address in the form as 6089/2, Dev Nagar, Padam Singh Road, Kaorl Bagh, Delhi – 110005. The facts/reasons are not known for sent the D A L on the address of Dilshad Garden. Due to non response, the allotment as well s registration was cancelled on 10/3/2004 and the cancellation conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 29/12/2004 at P 18C.
After examination of the records, it reveals that the Demand Cum Allotment letter was sent on wrong address by the Department and as such if agreed we may refer the file to Competent Authority to accord his/her kind approval for allotment of alternative flat from all the vacant available flats in the same zone/floor and cost etc. i.e. as per wrong address policy please.
Submitted for approval & order please.
Sd/
24.10.05
Copy of Demand cum allotment letter sent to the complainant by the OPs is Ex. DW1/2 from a perusal of which it clearly transpires that originally the correct address of the complainant had been mentioned and thereafter after cutting the said address Dilshad Garden address had been mentioned with ulterior motives. Ironically, the above facts pointed out by the concerned official of the OPs had fallen on deaf ears and OPs chose to maintain the stand that complainant s request cannot be considered for the reasons best known to them which, in our opinion, is not only arbitrary but smacks of malafide intention on the part of the OPs. The aforesaid note initiated by the concerned staff of the OPs establishes in unequivocal terms that due to some mischief of OPs, the demand cum allotment letter was sent at a address which was never filled up by the complainant while applying for allotment of flat. The aforesaid note of the OPs is marked as mark A for the purposes of identification. This is a case which proves that sometime the officials of OP DDA adopt high degree attitude of highhandedness and nepotism perhaps under a wrong belief that they are the supreme power and nobody can challenge their nefarious acts.
There is absolutely no material on the record to even remotely suggest that the complainant violated any terms and conditions of the allotment in question or that the scheme in question has been closed or that the complainant was himself guilty of delay and latches to some extent. Therefore, suffice is to say that the judgment relied on behalf of the OP in DDA Vs Sunil Kumar Jain, LPA 277/2013 decided by the Delhi High Court on 11.3.2014, Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of UP, Civil Appeal No. 2008 decided on 9.7.2008 by the Supreme Court of India and Poonam Verma & Ors Vs DDA, Civil Appeal No. 5874 of 2007 decided on 13.12.2007 by the Supreme Court of India are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The complainant has filed the additional documents which are the copies of the documents/notings forming part of the record of OP DDA which he had obtained under the RTI Act. Therefore, the complainant has obtained these documents according to law and, hence, the same, in our considered opinion, can be taken into consideration while deciding the present case. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs DDA & Ors, (2009) I SCC 180 does not apply to the facts of the present case.
Anyhow, the total demand made in the said Demand cum allotment letter is of Rs. 5,90,828/ in respect of the flat in question on hire purchase basis. Therefore, we hold that the OPs must now allot a MIG flat to the complainant in Janakpuri area or any other area on the same price i.e. Rs. 5,90,828/ .
In view of above findings, we allow the complaint and hold OPs guilty of committing grave deficiency in service by not sending the demand cum allotment letter at the correct address of the complainant by inserting wrong address of Dilshad Garden in the demand cum allotment letter.
Accordingly, we direct the complainant to deposit the whole amount of Rs. 5,90,828/ after deducting the amount, if any, already paid towards the allotment of the flat in question with the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter on receipt of the entire payment the OPs shall issue allotment letter in respect of MIG flat within a period of 45 days. We also direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
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 23.07.2016
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 583/07
23.7.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OPs are directed to allot a MIG flat at Rs. 5,90,828/ and also direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
