DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.169/2014
Sh. Subhash Chander
S/o Late Ram Narain,
R/o 2355, Ambala House, Chuna Mandi,
Paharganj, New Delhi - 110055
Also at
8/15, Ground Floor, Single Storey,
Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi – 110015
….Complainant
Versus
The Director,
Delhi Development Authority,
Janta Housing Branch,
D-Block, 2nd Floor,Vikas Sadan,
I.N.A., New Delhi - 110023
The Deputy Director
Delhi Development Authority,
Janta Housing Branch,
D-Block, 2nd Floor,Vikas Sadan,
I.N.A., New Delhi - 110023 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 28.04.2014
Date of Order : 04.02.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
Briefly put, the Complainant has sought direction to the Director and Dy. Director of Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred as OP-1 & OP-2) for allotment and possession of Janta Flat and further for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the harassment, agony, mental tension and torture.
The facts leading to the case are that the Complainant had booked a Janta Flat, under the Registration Scheme on New Pattern 1979 for which he deposited Rs.250/- vide registration No.33262, on 24.09.1979. Accordingly, OP issued certificate of Registration No.33262 dated 11.06.1980. The Complainant also visited the office of the OP many a time to enquire about the factual position of allotment of flat under the above mentioned scheme and was assured by official of the OP that communication in this regard shall be communicated as and when draw of lot for the said scheme is held. After a long wait, the Complainant wrote a letter on 25.08.2010 through registered AD and copy of which was also handed over personally to the OP. No reply was received in this regard, as maintained by Complainant.
The Complainant visited the office of OP in September, 2013 and was informed orally that he was allotted a flat No.124 Block No.8-A in Trilok Puri, Delhi. No record to this effect was provided to him. No communication was made to the Complainant about the said allotment. Again, he wrote a letter to OP in 12.09.2013 stating that no allotment letter is received by him. The Complainant further added that he is ready to pay the amount at the rate as was applicable at the time of draw against his booking. The OP informed the Complainant about the allotment vide letter dated 31.10.13 and stated that said allotment is cancelled on account of non-compliance of terms and conditions of the demand-cum-allotment letter. The Complainant against wrote similar letter dated 14.11.2013 exhorting the same request. The complainant also informed vide letter dated 11.02.2013 about the non-receipt of allotment-cum-demand letter despite the fact that his address remains unchanged. He also sought certain information such as allotment-cum-demand letter, proof of dispatch etc. vide RTI application dated 12.12.14. The OP also vide its letter dated 11.03.14 reiterated the earlier reply.
OPs, on the other hand, took preliminary objection on the ground of limitation and further state that there is no deficiency in service, on its part. The OP also relied on the following decided cases in its favour:-
- The NPRS scheme had already been closed and in terms of judgment in Poonam Verma v/s DDA 2007(13) SCC154, there is no question of allotment after closure of the scheme.
- In terms of judgment of DDA v/s Surinder Singh R.P. No.3791 of 2012 (National Commission)- in case a registered person gets a flat in any locality and once the flat is surrendered/cancelled due to non-compliance of requirement, the DDA obligation to allot a flat to him will be deemed to have been discharged.
- In the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan & Co. v/s Wazir Jaivir Chand (1989) 1SCC 264 – “it has been observed that if he is staying in the premises, there is no reason why it should not be served on him. If he is compelled to be away for some time, all that, he has to do is to leave necessary instructions with postal authorities……..”
The OP also accepted this fact that the Complainant got himself registered to Janta Flat under NPRS-79 Scheme. And he was successful drawee of Janta Flat No.124, 1st Floor, Block-8-A, Trilok Puri, Delhi in the year 1987. He was requested to deposit the amount as per schedule mentioned therein. The allotment was subject to terms and conditions as given in the DAL, Brocure and DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulations 1968. The OPs also mentioned the clause 28 of the NPRS-79 Scheme exhorting that once the Flat is cancelled due to non-compliance of the requirement, the DDA’s obligation to allot the flat will be deemed to have been discharged.
The OP also stated that no communication as maintained by Complainant was ever received, it was only on 17.09.2013 - a letter dated 12.09.2013 was received. Also stated that burden of proof by the Complainant to show that any letter between 1987 to 2009 was sent as well as several visits in the office of OP’s, was not discharged. The Complainant was duly informed about his letter dated 12.09.13 and thereafter. The OP’s also laid emphasis on this fact that the NPRS Scheme 1979 was closed thorough wide publicity after having issued notices to leading Newspaper as exhibited Ex OP- W/2, 3 & 4.
All the parties filed evidence by way of affidavit and respective written submissions. The replication is also filed by the Complainant. Oral arguments are heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the records so filed by the respective parties. It is noted that the Complainant has registered himself in NPRS-79 Scheme for which, the draw of lot was held in 1987. He was also allotted the flat as mentioned above. As regards to any communication w.r.t. allotment, the DDA/OPs could not show any shred of proof to discharge its burden of proof. At the same time, the Complainant did not bother to contact the DDA between 1979 to 2009 as no proof of any letter of this period was shown to this Commission. It is also noted that the Complainant has given its address in the Registration form as 2355, Ambala House, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj whereas it is noticed that the address of Ramesh Nagar alongwith that of Pahar Ganj is also given in the instant complaint. However, no explanation is given to this effect. One can draw conclusion safely that the Complainant might have shifted to new address or if he stayed throughout at the address of Pahar Ganj, then, the ratio of judgment in the case of Madan & Co. v/s Wazir Jaivir Chand(1989) ISCC 264 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall come into play and service of the any communication shall be deemed to have been served as mentioned above.
The OPs have also placed reliance on the premise that they had issued “Press Notice” in 27.02.96 inviting the “Attention of Registrants/allottees of New Pattern Registration Scheme – 1979 (janta category) for inspection of list who had deposited the necessary dues in r/o cancellation of their flats as exhibited Ex. OP W/2. Again, the OPs had issued Public Notice stating that attention of registrants under NPRS-79, Ambedkar Awas Yojna Scheme-89, Janta Housing Scheme 96 etc; is invited and stated that all allotment under these scheme have already been made and no allotment is pending as on date and all these scheme have already been closed in 22.11.12. This document is exhibited as Ex. OP W/3. Final opportunity in this regard was also issued.
In view of above narrations, it is evaluated that it is a case of OPs who have successfully proved their case. This Commission also further observed that moreover OPs have given Public Notice for closing the scheme many times and as being public body, has dealt the issue of allotment/closure in a transparent manner. This Commission is of the conscious view that the complaint is found devoid of merits and the Complaint of the complainant is rejected accordingly. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
