DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.259/2014
Sh. Sushil Kumar Kataria
S/o Sh. Hari Singh Kataria
H.No.- 81, Village and Post Mitraon
New Delhi- 110043
….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi- 110023
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 08.06.2014
Date of Order : 05.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
1. Complainant vide his complaint requested to pass an award directing the DDA (hereinafter referred to as OP) to refund the amount of Rs.12,000/- plus interest till date.
Brief facts of this case are as under;-
2. The Complainant applied for MIG Flat under Ambedkar Awas Yojna-1989, Special Housing Registration Scheme for SC/ST vide registration No.13522 (Priority No 2008). He deposited Rs.12,000/- as registration fees. The OP launched an Expandable Housing Scheme (EHS)-1995 from 24.01.1995 to 02.03.1995 to the waiting registrants of AAY-MIG-1995. The Complainant also submitted application for EHS-95 under EHS-Scheme. The complainant was allotted flat No.02025 YSB Pocket 3 E-239, Bindapur, Dwarka. The said flat was found built in small area with broken doors, window panes, toilet seat etc., which was not acceptable to the registrant complainant. The Complainant requested Joint Director of OP vide its letter dated 12.06.1995 to cancel the allotment of flat under EHS-1995 and continue his eligibility in the old scheme. The Complainant also maintained that these registrants of NPRS-79/AAY-89 Schemes were allotted incremental flats before announcement of EHS-95, are not liable to pay the cancellation charges/surrender charges and this seniority priority in allotment of regular size flat would remain intact. The Complainant requested vide its letter dated 05.08.1998 to Director (Housing) to continue his registration in MIG AAY-89 Scheme but OP vide its reply dated 14.12.1998 stated that the same was not covered within the policy guidelines. He wrote many letter dated 30.03.2000, 17.08.2001 & 15.05.2012 to OP in this regard but OP did not take any action asserting that nothing remains to consider as per Clause 14 of EHS-95.
3. The OP had issued a Public Notice in Time of India dated 22.11.2012 stating that applicants registered under NPRS-79 , AAY-89, JRS-96, EHS-95 and other schemes and who had not taken any refund of registration money, are advised to approach DDA and apply for refund with all requisite documents within 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice. The same is annexed at Annexure-8. In response to the above, the Complainant deposited all requisite documents vide letter dated 18.12.2012. The same is annexed at Annexure-9. The Complainant also placed the copy of the order of this forum in case No.146/13 of Sh. Thakur Singh Vs DDA where Hon’ble Forum restored the membership of AAY-89 Scheme/Seniority etc. He further maintained that on the basis of this order of this Hon’ble Forum, the Complaint may be allowed.
4. OP, on the other hand, filed its reply inter-alia raising some preliminary objections for disallowing the complaint. The OP maintained that the complaint was time barred under Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act and instant Complaint has been filed much beyond the period for two years of limitation in terms of judgement of Kerala Agro Vs Bijoy Kumar 2002(3) SCC 165. He further cited the judgement of Poonam Verma Vs DDA 2007 (13) SCC154, where Hon’ble Apex Court held that after the closure of Scheme, there is no question of allotment. It was also averred that once a flat is allotted to registrant and same is surrendered, the OP’s (DDA) obligation to allot a flat, will be deemed to have been discharged as held by Hon’ble National Commission in RP No.3791 of 2012.
5. It is true that the Complainant is registrant of AAY-89 Scheme and further allowed under EHS-95 to apply for allotment as mentioned above and Brochure. As a result of which, he was declared successful for allotment of EHS Flat No.239, Pocket 3, BLK-E Sector-B-Dwarka (Bindapur). He was issued demand-cum-allotment letter dated 15th /30th May, 1995 with the request to make payment as per schedule mentioned therein. The DAL is subject to provisions of Brochure of Scheme and also DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulation-1968. It has been specifically mentioned in Brochure of EHS-95 (Colmn.14 at page No.14) under the heading Surrender/Cancellation: - For registrant of NPRS-79 and AAY-1989, if allotment made is surrendered, the amount forfeiture shall be as under-
- Rs.5,000/- provided the request is made within 30 days of issue of DAL.
- Rs.10,000/- in case if application of surrender/cancellation has been made after 30 days but within 60 days of the issuance of DAL.
6. Full amount deposited as registration deposit under NPRS 1979/AA-89 shall stand forfeited in all other cases.
7. Both the parties have filed evidence-in-affidavit. Written Statement is on record so is rejoinder. The written submissions on behalf of OP are on record whereas; the Complainant was appearing in person so written arguments on his behalf were not insisted upon. Complainant in person had appeared in person on many occasions but arguments could not be addressed on short of time etc. later on, arguments were heard & concluded.
8. This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues placed on record. The OP has relied upon the case of Poonam Verma Vs DDA (Supra) wherein it has been held that after the closure of the scheme, there is no question of any allotment and therefore complainant is not entitled for any allotment. But the Complainant is asking for a refund of deposited amount. The counsel for OP also placed reliance on judgement of Kerala Agro Vs Bijoy Kumar (Supra) but the instant case is slightly different in facts as the allotment of flat or refund of deposited amount had not been done. Hence, cause of action remains continuous till allotment of site or refusal as held in case of Juliet Vs Mrs. Malthi Kumar, IV (2005) CPJ51 (Hon’ble National Commission) by Hon’ble National Commission. Hence, complaint cannot be said barred by limitation.
9. The ratios of other cases as referred by the counsel for OP are not found applicable as facts of the instant complaint are entirely different.
10. This Commission examined the ratio of Thakur Singh Vs DDA of this Hon’ble Forum wherein the complaint was allowed for relief of restoring the membership under the AAY-89 Scheme. But, Sh. Thakur Singh did not opt for the EHS Scheme of 1995. The DDA allotted the flat under EHS to the complainant Sh. Singh did not exercise to opt said Scheme. Hence, his right survived. But in the instant case, the complainant opted for EHS-95. Hence, the facts are different.
11. This Commission further examined the right of seeking refund under the Public Notice issued by OP vide Time of India dated 22.11.2012. The time limit for applying the refund was within 30 days from the date of publication of notice i.e. 22.11.2012. The Complainant applied for refund on 08.12.2012 which appears well within 30 days. As per Brochure attached herewith and the evidence-in-affidavit of the OP, if registrant of the NPRS-79, AAY-89 applies for refund of within 30 days, only Rs.5,000 shall be forfeited. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for the rest of the amount as he deposited Rs.12,000/- at the time of registration in AAY-89 Scheme on 08.12.89. The photocopy of challan is attached alongwith complaint. The Complainant is entitled interest to be accrued on Rs.12,000/- since 08.12.1989 till surrender of allotment and thereafter after deducting the amount of Rs.5,000/-. The interest shall be accrued on remaining amount of Rs.7,000/- till the payment is made.
12. In nutshell, after having considered the material placed before us and facts and circumstances in the case as discussed above, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for refund as discussed in the above paras. OP is also directed to calculate the interest @12% per annum as per above discussion till the realization of payment within 03 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the interest shall be levied on the amount so arrived @15% per annum till its realization.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
