DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 39/2010
Sh. Vijay Kumar,
S/o Shri Babu Lal,
R/o C-20, MCD Flats,
Naniwala Bagh, Azadpur,
Delhi - 110033 ...Complainant
Versus
Commissioner Housing,
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi ...Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 22.01.2010 Date of Order : 20.08.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
The complainant applied for a flat under the Special Housing Registration Scheme for SC/ST Persons, 1989 by depositing a demand draft dated 19.12.1989 with the OP. It is stated that on specific directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition, the OP issued a demand-cum-allotment letter to the complainant and the complainant on 27.08.2009 vide written communication sent all the relevant documents to the OP which were acknowledged vide receipt No. REC/H/09/19090 dated 27.8.2009 but despite that no possession letter has been issued to him. It is prayed in the complaint that the OP be directed to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 12,57,352/- deposited by the complainant with further amount of Rs. 25,487/- deposited earlier (totalling Rs. 12,82,840/-), Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
OP, in the written statement, has pleaded as under:
“5. That the complaint filed by the complainant is liable for outright rejection on the ground that the matter has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court duly complied by DDA and no liberty was granted by the Hon’ble High Court to complainant for claiming compensation etc. for the similar cause of action.”
It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OP wherein he has not specifically denied the above reproduced portion of the written statement.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. D.K. Gupta, Director (H)-I has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 7.12.2011. We have heard the counsel for the OP and have also carefully gone through the record.
Counsel for the OP has taken us through a copy of the Conveyance Deed executed by the OP in favour of the complainant whereby the possession of flat No. 391, T.F., Jahangir Puri, Delhi has already been delivered to the complainant and the Conveyance Deed executed in his favour. Copy of the allotment letter dated 25.3.2010 is Ex. OPW1/5. The copy of the Conveyance Deed executed by the OP in favour of the complainant in respect of the above stated flat is Ex. OPW1/17. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant has been given possession of the above stated flat by the OP during the pendency of the complaint and the Conveyance Deed in respect of the said flat has also been executed by the OP in his favour. There is no material on the record which may even remotely show that the complainant took the possession of the flat and got the Conveyance Deed executed in his favour in respect of the above stated flat under any protest. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is no more entitled to any relief.
The complaint is disposed off accordingly.
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 20.08.16.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 39/2010
20.8.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, we have held that the complainant is no more entitled to any relief. The complaint is disposed off accordingly. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
