Delhi

South Delhi

CC/108/2007

SURENDER PALL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

25 Mar 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

UDYOG SADAN, C-22 & 23, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA

(BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL) : NEW DELHI – 110016.

 

                                Case No. 108/07

 

Sh. Surender Pal,

S/o Late Sh. Mahavir,

R/o 67-A, Pocket A-2,

Mayur Vihar Phase-III,

Delhi – 110096.                                             - Complainant

 

Vs

 

Delhi Development Authority,

Vikas Sadan, Near INA,

New Delhi – 110023.

Through its Deputy Director

Housing/Vice Chairman

 

1. Vice Chairman

2. Director Commercial Estate                         - Opposite Party

 

                                                                                                                                          Date of Institution: 16.01.2007

                                                  Date of decision: 25.3.2015

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Anjum Parveen Alam, Member

 

                                      O R D E R

 

Ms. Anjum Parveen Alam, Member

 

                                       

    The case of the complainant is that he is the owner/purchaser of LIG Flat No. 67-A, Pocket A-2, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi – 110 096 (in short, flat in question) by means of various documents such as GPA, SPA, Agreement to Sell, Will etc., executed in his favour by one Smt. G. Bhanumati on 22.4.1996 and she had purchased the flat through similar type of documents from one Sh. Guruswami in the year 1992 who in turn he had purchased it from its original allottee Sh. Prem Prakash Malik vide various documents of transfer dated 8.5.1992.  It is stated that the complainant had applied  for conversion of the flat from leasehold to freehold under the scheme of DDA on 10.5.2006 vide file No. 45 (1335) 90 LIG vide application No. 067961 and deposited the necessary conversion charges; that thereafter he pursued the application and visited the office of the OP but the dealing official of the OP told him to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,99,700/- on the ground that the same was towards the cost of the flat in question and had to be deposited by the complainant without prejudice to his rights; that complainant accordingly deposited the said amount of Rs. 1,99,700/- vide challan No. 677571 dated 4.7.2006 in the DDA through the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan branch, New Delhi; that the complainant protested to the said amount  since the same ought to have been got deposited on a letter of demand raised by the OP.  Despite that he has not been given any relief despite visits made to the office of OP and letter dated 25.10.06.  Hence the complainant has filed this complaint for issuing directions to the OP to forward the file of the complainant for conversion of the flat in question from leasehold to freehold, to refund the amount of Rs. 1,99,700/- taken towards the cost of flat in question along with interest, Rs. 1 Lakh towards damages for causing delay, harassment, mental, physical and financial agony and also cost of litigation.

    In its written statement, the OP has taken a plea that the flat in question was allotted to Sh. Prem Prakash Malik who deposited the part payment of Rs. 52,000/- on 10.3.92 against the payment of Rs. 1,99,660/-; that the complainant came forward with the conversion of leasehold to freehold vide application No. 67961 dated 10.5.2006 by depositing conversion charges of Rs. 14,000/- plus Rs. 200/- as processing fee and thereafter Rs. 1,99,700/- towards cost of the flat in question on 4.7.2006, which means that the complainant himself was well aware of the non-payment of the cost of the flat upto the receipt of court fee.  However, it is stated that it was only after receiving of the conversion application from the complainant that it had been detected that the allottee had taken the possession of the flat in question without depositing the total cost of flat and in the conversion case the complainant had to pay the total cost of flat, interest as well as restoration charges as per the advise of accounts wing of DDA.  It is pleaded that there is neither a case of deficiency in service nor negligence on the part of the OP; that the complaint is time barred under Section 24 of the Consumer. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

     The complainant has filed a rejoinder wherein he has pleaded himself to be a bonafide purchaser of the flat in question.

    The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.  On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar, Director DDA has been filed on behalf of OP.

    Written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties.

    We have heard the counsel for OP.  However, none has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. We have also gone through the file very carefully.

    Without going  into the question of limitation, we are of the opinion that the complaint otherwise does not disclose any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

    Documents filed on record prove that the flat in question was originally allotted to one Sh. Prem Praksh Malik for a total amount of Rs. 1,99,659.62 and he sold the same to one Sh. Guruswami for a total amount of Rs. 50,000/-.  Sh. Guruswami through his wife Smt. G. Bhanumati sold the flat in question to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- only.  Admittedly, on demand made by the OP after receiving the conversion application from the complainant, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,99,700/- towards cost of the flat in question with the OP on 4.7.2006.  Therefore, the original allottee sold the flat in question at much lesser price to someone else who in turn sold the same to the complainant for a total amount of Rs. 70,000/- only.  Therefore, as on date of application of conversion from leasehold to freehold in respect of the flat in question, the original owner or the subsequent purchaser including the complainant had not deposited the total cost of the flat in question with the OP-DDA.  Therefore, by asking him to deposit the difference in the cost amount of the flat in question, the OP did not commit any deficiency in service.  Therefore, in our considered opinion, the OP is not guilty of deficiency in service. However, the OP shall process the claim of the complainant for conversion of flat in question from leasehold to freehold within a reasonable time if the claim has already been not disposed off by the OP.

 

    In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.  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.

 

 

    

(ANJUN PARVEEN ALAM)                                          (N.K. GOEL)     MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Announced on 25.3.15.