DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.293/2010
Smt. Sheela Devi Senior Citizen
W/o Late Sh. Durga Prasad ( 69 years old)
R/o 13/400, DDA Flats, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
through its Director (Housing)
D Block, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 03.05.10 Date of Order : 10.03.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
MS. NAINA BAKSHI, MEMBER
Complainant’s case, in short, is that on 05.07.1980 she had got herself registered in Registration Scheme on New Pattern, 1979, under serial No. 59102 and made payment of Rs.1500/- towards the registration fee. The OP issued deposit receipt No.115245 towards registration fee. On 06.08.1980 her husband had died in a road accident leaving behind 3 children and she got herself employed with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. as a helper in order to maintain her family. She was allotted a flat in Sector-18, Block-B, Pocket-10, Rohini vide allotment letter No.L015(1120)91/RO/NP dated 3/5.09.1991. The price of the said flat was Rs.1,83,600/- and an initial deposit of Rs.71815.30p was to be paid till 04.10.1991. It is submitted that after the death of her husband she was not in a financial position to make the initial deposit of Rs.71815.30p at the time of allotment of the allotted flat or the complete amount of Rs.1,83,600/-. She opted for voluntary cancellation of the above mentioned allotment without revoking the initial registration. She sent a written request dated 22.11.1991 alongwith the requisite cancellation fee to the OP. She waited for another 16 years for allotment of a flat by the OP. She was under the belief that the first allotment had already been legitimately cancelled while maintaining the registration of the Complainant as per the scheme of the OP. She made a request on 08.10.2007 to the OP for allotment of a flat. When no reply was received from the OP she filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 in order to ascertain the status of her request dated 08.10.07. On 04.02.2008 the OP sent a misleading reply No.PS/DH-II/RTI/2007/ID No.49/SH-2115/212. She again filed another application U/s 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 26.05.2009 requesting for inspection of the case file of the Complainant. The OP vide letter dated 25.06.09 informed the Complainant that “ the concerned property file is not traceable. As and when the same is trace out required information will be furnished accordingly”. It is submitted that the OP introduced around 42 housing schemes so far till date, however, despite being a registered applicant in the DDA scheme, she has not been allotted any flat till today due to delay by the OP. She has been continuously living in a rented accommodation with her children. She has suffered huge monetary loss and tremendous mental harassment as she was to pay an average rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month for her rented accommodation and suffered a loss of Rs.2,64,000/- towards rent. Moreover, the OP is also liable for damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental and physical harassment caused to the Complainant. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:
- Direct the OP to withdraw the letter dated 04.02.2008 having reference No.PS/DH-II/RTI/2007/ID No.49/SH-2115/212 and all other letters, if any, incidental thereto,
- Direct the OP to issue a fresh allotment letter as per norms in the Lower Income Group to the Complainant,
- Direct the OP to pay damages to the tune of Rs.3,64,000/- to the Complainant.
In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that the present complaint has been filed much beyond the period of two years of limitation in terms of the judgment of Kerala Agro V/s Bijoy Kumar 2002 (3) SCC 165. The Complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(d) and 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as there is no hiring of services. The complaint does not disclose any cause of action and no cause of action arose. It is submitted that the Complainant vide application No. 036008 dated 03.10.1979 had got herself registered for allotment of LIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. She was assigned a registration No.59102 and priority No.20443. She was declared successful for the allotment of LIG flat No.3, First Floor, Sector-18, Block-B, Pocket-10, Dwarka through the draw held on 15.02.1991 on hire purchase basis. Demand–cum-allotment letter was issued to her on 03.09.91-05.09.91 to deposit the initial cost on or before 03.12.91. The balance cost of the flat was to be deposited through 180 monthly installments @ Rs.1487.03 commencing from 10.11.91. The Complainant did not accept the allotment and surrendered the same vide letter dated 22.11.91 and deposited Rs.300/- towards the cancellation charges at her own. Thereafter, the competent authority cancelled the allotment vide letter dated 25.03.1992 and vide letter dated 16.05.1994 the Complainant was requested to deposit Rs.2095/- on account of cancellation charges. However, she did not deposit the demanded cancellation charges. The Complainant vide letter dated 19.12.2002 requested the OP for allotment of a flat on out of turn allotment basis. The request of the Complainant was examined but could not be acceded to as she had failed to deposit the cancellation charges which were demanded vide letter dated 16.05.1994. The case of the Complainant could not be considered under tail-end priority policy as the same was already closed. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.01.08 which was examined and a detailed reply was sent to her on 30.01.08 and the reply to another RTI application dated 23.05.08 was given by the OP vide letter dated 11.06.08. Since the NPRS Scheme 1979 under which the Complainant was registered has since closed after due publication in the leading newspapers, therefore, the Complainant is entitled for refund of registration money after furnishing all the original/required documents. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
No rejoinder has been filed by the Complainant.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. D. K. Gupta, Director (H-II) 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.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant vide application No.036008 dated 03.10.1979 had registered herself for allotment of LIG flat under NPRS Scheme 1979 and she was allotted LIG flat No.3, First Floor, Sector-18, Block-B, Pocekt-10, Dwarka, thorugh the draw held on 15.02.1991. The OP issued demand–cum-allotment letter on 03.09.91-05.09.91 to deposit the initial amount on or before 03.12.91. The balance cost of the flat was to be deposited through 180 monthly installments @ 1487.03 commencing from 10.11.91. The complainant vide letter dated 22.11.1991 informed the OP for cancellation of the allotment and deposited Rs.300/- for cancellation charges (copy Annexure CW-1/E). The OP vide letter dated 25.03.12.1992 informed the Complainant that the allotment of the above flat had been cancelled (copy Annexure CW-1/F). The complainant vide letter dated 19.12.2002 sent a letter to the Vice-Chairman of OP regarding allotment of out of turn flat (copy Annexure CW-1/G). The OP vide letter dated 16-5-1994 sent a letter to the Complainant and requested to deposit a sum of Rs.2095/- on account of cancellation charges within 60 days from the date of issue of the letter and after that her name will be considered at the tail-end of the priority list of the allotment of the flat (copy Annexure CW-1/N). Thereafter, complainant vide letter dated 01.11.12 sent a letter to the OP depositing a sum of Rs.2095/- towards additional cancellation charges (copy Annexure CW-1/O).
It is evident from the record that the complainant herself requested the OP vide letter dated 22.11.1991 to cancel the allotment of the flat. The OP vide letter dated 25.03.92 informed the complainant that the allotment of the above said flat had been cancelled on her request. She has deposited Rs.2095/- towards additional cancellation charges vide her letter dated 01.11.12 during the pendency of the present complaint. As the complainant herself had requested for cancellation of the flat, therefore the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
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 10.03.17.
