DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.15/2009
Smt. Vimla Goyal
W/o Sh. Dharam Pal Goyal
Prop. M/s Goyal Industries
H- 46, Udyog Nagar, Nangloi,
Delhi- 110041 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA Market,
New Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 06.11.2009
Date of Order : 07.02.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
The Complainant has put in a claim for the award for the refund of amount of Rs.3,26,405/- alongwith interest @24% per annum; a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc.
The facts leading to the case are that the Complainant had acquired the lease hold rights of Plot No.46, Clock No.H, Udyog Nagar, Delhi- as allotted by the DDA in 1978 (hereinafter referred as OP). The Complainant was required to raise construction within two years to be reckoned w.e.f. 24.06.1978 after obtaining sanction of building plan. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.8,599/- as composition fee on extension of time till 31.03.1984. Again, the Complainant got extension from time to time up to 23.06.1987 vide letter dated 18.11.1986 and a sum of Rs.13,513.50 was deposited on 16.01.1987 on account of composition fee.
Further, the complainant deposited requisite fee of Rs.15/- for seeking the ‘D’ Form. ‘D’ Form was granted on 18.10.1989 and no other amount was demanded by OP by this time. The Complainant applied for conversion of lease hold rights into free-hold. The OP demanded the following amount for the above:
- Rs.3,277/- on account of balance conversion charges.
- Rs.17,961/- on account of ground rent.
- Rs.3,26,705/- on account of composition fee. The same is exhibited as Annexure-‘B’(Colly).
The Complainant alleged that the said composition fee is illegal and unwarranted and no basis of calculation was disclosed. The Complainant added that he ultimately deposited Rs.3,47,943/- on 12.11.2007 after losing hope from all quarters. He got the subject property free hold from the Competent Authority. But he maintained that the charging of Rs.3,26,705/- was illegal, hence, the officials of OP committed gross negligence and deficiency in service.
On the other hand, the OP vide its written statement denied the charges as alleged by the Complainant. The OP took preliminary objections on the number of accounts such as – time barred under Section 24A of the erstwhile Act, there is no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of OP, law of estoppel applies in this case and pecuniary jurisdiction etc. The OP further maintained that the Complainant had failed to complete the building within two year and many extensions were granted. On earlier occasions, he deposited the charges from time to time and last extension was granted till 23.06.1987 and necessary amount was deposited on 16.01.1987. The OP further maintained that the composition fee for the period 24.12.1987 to 18.10.1989 was levied mainly on account of this fact that the occupation certificate submitted by the Complainant was of 18.10.1989. The OP also accepted this fact that the Complainant had deposited the composition fee for extension of time from time to time till 23.06.1987. The OP has also tried to show that the Complainant had applied and obtained ‘D’ form in 1989, hence, it goes to show that the Complainant could raise the construction/building by 1989 only. Thus, the Complainant defaulted many a time.
The OP contended that the Complainant did not register any protest while depositing the said amount vide letter dated 12.11.2007 and look exception on this being after thought.
Both the parties filed written submission and evidences by way of affidavit. The OP also filed written statement so the rejoinder by the Complainant. Oral arguments heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone through the material placed on record. After going through the documents and pleadings, it is revealed that the contention remains around the composition fees of Rs.3,26,705/- charged while conversion of lease-hold to free-hold by the OP at its end for the period from 1987 to 1989 till ‘D’ form was obtained by the Complainant on deposition of necessary dues. The Complainant contended that the building as required under the terms and conditions was raised some where in 1987 but ‘D’ Form regarding completion/occupation was applied and obtained in 1989. No evidence/contention in this regard whether raising of the construction/building is sufficient or obtaining ‘D’ form is necessary by either party. However, as per written statement, the OP maintains that composition fee of Rs.3,26,705/- pertains to 1987 to 1989. No specific evidence is found on record.
While scrutinizing the material placed on record, one circular dated 04.01.2007 was found alongwith written statement of OP. The relevant excerpts of said letter are reproduced here for appreciation of facts:-
- In supersession of all previous orders/instructions on the subject, the Hon’ble L.G., Delhi is pleased to revise existing rates of composition fee…..
- In cases where demand has been raised but the payment had not been received as per the terms of demand letter, the composition fee shall be re-worked as per latest policy.
- The maximum permissible period of construction of various categories of plots allotted or auctioned by DDA, shall be limited 10 years………..
It is noticed that the execution of the conversion of lease-hold to free-hold had taken place in 07.02.2008. The OP has not specifically mentioned whether latest rates shall be applicable or not. 10 year’s limitation is applicable or not while executing the conversion in 07.02.2008.
This Commission while taking cognizance of latest circular dated 04.01.2007, applies the limit of 10 years here also without disturbing the charges deposited for extension of time for raising the construction before 23.06.1987. The OP has mentioned in its written statement that the period of limitation of two year began/reckon from 24.06.1978 and this limitation of 10 years shall complete in 6/88. This Commission feels convinced that the composition fee should be worked out accordingly that the OP should refund the remaining amount out of Rs.3,26,705/- after deducting the remaining composition fee on the application of latest circular. The Commission further directs that this process should be completed within 3 months and interest shall be levied @6% per annum on the remaining amount out of Rs.3,26,705/- failing which, the rate of interest shall be levied @9% per annum till its realization of the said amount.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
