DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.1086/2007

                                                          SENIOR CITIZEN

(85 YEARS)

Smt. Sheela  Bhasin  

R/o  House No. 59/23

New Rohtak Road

Karol Bagh

New Delhi-110 005.                                                  ….Complainant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority

Through The Deputy Director(SFS)

Ist Floor, Vikas Road

Vikas Sadan,

INA, New Delhi                                                     ….Opposite Party

Date of Institution              :     04.10.2007            Date of Order      :    29.03.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

          The case  of the complainant,  in nutshell, is that  in response to an advertisement given  by  the OP  for  allocation  of flats  under the Sixth Self Financing  Scheme, 1985  she applied for a flat by giving her preference in the areas of Vasant Kunj, Katwaria  Sarai, Kishangarh, Sarita Vihar, Sheikh  Sarai and Jasola  vide application No. 003589 dated 21.01.1995 and deposited Rs. 15,000/-  vide FDR No. 004655 duly received and acknowledged in the office of the OP  on 24.07.1985, However, vide  demand letter  bearing file No.  60(0411) 95/SFS/KL/III  she was allotted  a  Type III Flat in Pocket G  on  the Second Floor in the area at Kondli, Gharoli in the draw held on 09.03.1995 with an estimated  cost of Rs. 7,60,000/-  and 90%   of the estimated cost was to be paid  in four  installments as mentioned in the demand letter.  Since the flat was  not allotted  in the areas of her choice  and also due to certain other reasons   such as suffering of her son from blood cancer  thereby  spending  huge amount on his treatment the complainant did not or could not  deposit the said amount  and  the allotment  of the said flat in her favour was cancelled.  However, according to her, she again applied on 17.02.2005 with the OP to furnish the details of the price and other charges to be paid by her so that she  could take possession of the Flat under the said scheme. However, despite making correspondence and personal visit and service of a legal notice through advocate on 13.02.2007 the OP did not take any action. Hence pleading negligence on the part of the OP, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards physical  agony with interest at the rate of  24% p.a. and also to  allot a flat in her favour.

In written statement the OP has inter-alia pleaded that the complaint is hopelessly time barred u/s 24 A  of the Consumer Protection Act; the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1) (d) of the said Act.  It is submitted  that after the allotment  of a flat in category  III , SFS Flat (IInd Floor)  Pocket G , Kondli, Gharoli vide allocation letter dated 14.03.1995, the complainant failed to deposit the amount  in time and the allocation was automatically cancelled.  The receipt of the letter dated 17.02.2005 from the complainant is denied.  It is pleaded that the OP has not committed any deficiency in service. Hence it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the OP and has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. 

The Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand the affidavit of Sh. D.K. Gupta, Director (Housing) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

 We have heard the son of the complainant and the Counsel for the OP and have also carefully gone through the record.

 The complainant did not deposit the amount as per the allotment letter for the block dates 14.03.1995 -22.03.1995.  She made a request to the OP to intimate her about the details of the  price and other charges in respect of the flat on 17.02.2005, though according to the OP Complainant has not  filed any document to show about the mode of sending the said letter to the OP.  Even otherwise, as per the averments made in the said letter (Copy of which we mark as mark ‘A’ for the purpose of identification) the complainant had become ready to make the payment of the flat in the year 2005. Thus she had made the said representation to the OP after about 10 years from the date of allotment-cum-demand letter.  It is true that she has not  filed any postal receipt on the record  to show that she had in fact sent the letter to the OP and  if so, through post or delivered the same in person. Hence delivery of the letter dated 17.02.2005 in the office of OP is highly doubtful.    She has filed the present complaint on 04.10.2007. Thus we held that the complaint is in fact hopelessly time barred u/s 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.

The mere fact  that the complainant was not in a financial position  to deposit the installments in the year 1995 does not make her entitled  to the allotment  of the said flat or any other flat in lieu thereof in the year 2005.  Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Complaint even otherwise does not disclose any cause of action.  Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint 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 29.03.17.