CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
UDYOG SADAN, C-22 & 23, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA
(BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL) : NEW DELHI – 110016.
Case No. 1599/03
Vinod Kumar Sharma,
S/o Shri A.C. Sharma,
R/o 76/118, Saket, Rajpur Road,
Dehradun (Uttaranchal). - Complainant
Vs
Delhi Devlopment Authority,
Through its Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi - 23. - Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 23.12.2003 Date of decision: 05.05.2015
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Anjum Parveen Alam, Member
O R D E R
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
The complainant applied for allotment of flat in the VIth Self Housing Financing Registration Scheme of 1985 of the OP and deposited Rs. 10,000/- vide challan No. 10641 with the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi for II category of flat vide receipt No. 009821 dated 23.7.85 and he was registered as a registrant of VIth Self Financing Housing Scheme for Category II. Thereafter, he came across an advertisement which appeared in the national newspapers with respect to the VIth Self Housing Financing Scheme of 1985, the complainant made an application on 20.6.1994 by submitting an application No. 00555 which was duly acknowledged by the OP and in the said application the complainant
Case No. 1599/03
made preference of locations as under:
No. 1 at Vasant Kunj
No. 2 at Sukhdev Nagar
No. 3 Rajouri Garden
No. 4 Janak Puri
No. 5 Vikas Puri
It is stated that the OP sent an allotment-cum-payment advice vide reference No. F.No.177(0694)94/SFS/DW/II Block dated 10.8.94 to 18.8.94 and by this letter the OP allotted a flat at Dwarka block locality Category II on 2nd floor in Block No. 7 mentioning the schedule of instalments. According to the complainant, he had never opted for Dwarka Block and had already given preference of choice and the allotted flat at Dwarka was never his option and was thus totally contrary to the preference of localities mentioned by him. It is stated that the OP failed to allocate the flat in the localities of preference given inspite of taking Rs. 10,000/- and the OP did not act despite letter dated 26.12.94 to Helpline Zee Telefilms, PB No. 3, New Delhi, copy of which was also sent to the OP and a legal notice dated 24.7.2002 was sent by the complainant through his advocate to the OP. Hence, this complaint has been filed for issuing directions to the OP to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by him vide Receipt No. 009821 dated 23.7.85 along with 18% interest per annum from 23.7.85 till the date of payment without any deductions and in the alternative to allot the same category of flat anywhere in Delhi in the preferred locations of the complainant and also to pay 10,000/- towards travelling charges from Dehradun to Delhi.
In its written statement, the OP has pleaded that the complaint is barred by time as provided under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is submitted that allotment in question was made on the basis of the application made by the complainant
Case No. 1599/03
in the release which opened on 1.6.1994 and closed on 20.6.1994 but he failed to pay the demanded amount as per terms and conditions of the demand-cum-allocation letter and, therefore, the allotment stood cancelled automatically after 4 months from the date of issuance of demand cum allocation letter. It is stated that the amount (if any due) shall be refunded to the complainant after deducting the cancellation/surrender charges as per clause 12.1 of the brochure. It is stated that in the said release, in para 2.3 of the brochure it had specifically been mentioned that registrants were advised to give preference to all localities mentioned in the brochure at Annexures A & B and the registrants not doing so will be allocated/allotted flat out of the flats which would become available after accommodating the preference and choices of the registrants applying in this release through draw of lot; since the complainant did not give preference for all the localities, therefore, the complainant was allotted the flat out of the flats which were made available and, hence, the allocation made to the complainant is as per the terms of the brochure. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The complainant has filed a rejoinder.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. R.K. Mishra, Director (Housing) has been filed on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties.
We have heard the counsel for the OP and have also carefully perused the file.
The facts are not in dispute. The only question to be decided is, whether the OP allotted the flat at Dwarka to the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the brochure. Copy of the brochure has been filed. Para 2.3 of the brochure is relevant.
Case No. 1599/03
The same is reproduced as under:
“2.3 Delhi Development Authority has decided that this will be the last and final chance for the cat. II registrants of 6th Scheme. Registrants are advised to give preference for all localities mentioned in the brochure at Annexure A & B. The registrants not doing so will be allocated/allotted flat out of flats which would become available after accommodating the preference and choices of the registrants applying in this release through draw of lots”.
The term is too clear and unambiguous to clarify or to interpret. The locations of the flats have been mentioned in Annexures A & B of the brochure. From a perusal of Annx. ‘A’ it becomes abundantly and crystal clear that complainant had opted 5 locations from locations given in Annexure A Category II and not from any of the locations Category II of the flats given in Annex. B. Thus, it was the complainant himself who had not complied with the condition specified in clause 2.3 of the brochure. Thus, the OP was perfectly justified in ignoring the preferential locations given by the complainant and allotting a flat to him in Dwarka.
Admittedly, the complainant did not pay any instalment towards this allotment. Allotment was made to him in the Block dated 10.8.94 to 18.8.94. Thus, the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose in his favour between 10.8.94 to 18.8.94. He has filed the present complaint in the month of December 2003. Sending of letter dated 26.12.94 to Helpline Zee Telefilms with a copy to the OP and the legal notice dated 24.7.2002 does not extend the period of limitation. Alleged retention of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the complainant on 23.7.95 till the date of filing of the complaint also does not extend the period of
Case No. 1599/03
limitation for filing the complaint. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complaint is highly time barred.
We hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in allotting a flat to the complainant at Dwarka and at the same time the complaint is also time barred.
So far as the refund of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 23.7.85 is concerned, we must say at once that it is not a case of non-allotment of flat or delayed allotment of flat. Complainant sent his options of locations to the OP vide application dated 20.6.94 and the flat at Dwarka had been allotted to him in Block dated 10.8.94 to 18.8.94. According to the OP, the amount (if any due) shall be refunded to the complainant after deducting the cancellation/surrender charges as per clause 12.1 of the brochure. Clause 12.1 of the brochure deals with the cases of surrender/cancellation. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the OP is entitled to deduct the surrender/cancellation charges from the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the complainant.
In view of the above, we advice the complainant to apply for refund of Rs. 10,000/- in the office of the OP which shall be dealt with in accordance with clause 12.1 of the brochure. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
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 05.05.15.
