DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 468/06
Smt. Basanti Kotnala
W/o Sh. A. R. Kotnala
R/o Flat No. 354-D
J & K Pocket, Dilshad Garden
Delhi - 110092 -Complainant
Vs
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman
Office of Director (Housing-I)/P10
D Block, 3rd Floor
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi – 110023 -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 31.08.2006 Date of Order: 20.5.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that she became the owner of MIG flat bearing No. 354-D, Pkt J&K, Dilshad Garden, Delhi (3rd floor) on the basis of Regd. GPA dated 03.4.1998 executed in her favour by the previous owner; that the previous allottee had paid a sum of Rs. 9185/- (as registration charges and interest on it), Rs. 32,132/- on 5.12.1990, Rs. 51,300/- on 20.2.1997 and Rs. 2,06,600/- on 22.10.1997 which had been acknowledged by the OP in its statement of dues dated 7.6.2006 sent along with letter dated 14.6.06 to the complaint in response to the RTI application dated 29.5.2006. It is stated that the previous allottee had deposited full amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 38/96 subject to the adjustment of the payments earlier made by the previous allottee on 23.10.1997 and occupied the flat as owner on 24.12.1997. According to the complainant, she had applied for conversion of the flat from leasehold to freehold on 21.7.2004 and only then the OP served the demand notice dated 14.6.06 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,51,933/- from the complainant which was unjustified since the original allottee had already paid the entire payment of cost of the flat of Rs. 2,90,000/- and the OP had accepted the same. It is stated that the complainant gave several representations to the OP but to no effect. It is stated that the OP does not have any legal right, title and interest to recover Rs. 1,31,933/- and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of restoration charges from the complainant but, however, the OP has not desisted itself from doing so despite service of legal notice dated 13.7.2006 on behalf of the complainant. Hence, it is prayed that the OP be directed to cancel the demand of Rs. 151933/- with all interest, damages and penalty as raised in the notice dated 14.6.2006, (ii) to issue No dues certificate against the said flat in favour of the complainant, (iii) to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental torture, pain and agony suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and (iv) to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- being the cost of litigation to the complainant.
In its reply, OP has inter-alia pleaded that in the order dated 7.4.97 passed in the LPA, the High Court had directed the complainant (Sh. Hardev Grover, previous allottee) to deposit the full amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- subject to adjustment of payments already deposited; that he made the part payment and the then Commissioner (H) vide his order dated 4.12.97 agreed to implement the interim order dated 7.4.97; that as per final order dated 10.7.2001 the LPA had been dismissed as none was present on that date. It is stated that in the year 2004 the complainant had applied for conversion of the flat from leasehold to freehold in the capacity of being its purchaser and the accounts wing of the OP intimated that a sum of Rs. 58,661/- on account of interest on belated payment and Rs. 20,000/- on account of restoration charges were recoverable from the complainant before conversion was allowed and accordingly the complainant vide order dated 7.11.05 was asked to deposit the same. It is further stated that with the passage of time amount continued to increase and the same was calculated to Rs. 1,31,933/- (as interest) as on 30.6.2006 and Rs. 20,000/- recoverable at the time of requiring the information under the RTI Act in the month of June 2006 which the complainant has not paid so far and, hence, request of the complainant for conversion of the flat from leasehold to freehold could not be acceded to. It is stated that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder, the complainant has denied the averments made in the reply of the OP and has stated that the demand is highly unjust, arbitrary, irrational, illegal, unlawful and contrary to the terms and conditions.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence and she has put reliance on the documents Ex. CW1/1 to CW1/16. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar, Director (H)I has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.
The relevant portion of order dated 9.4.07 passed in LPA 38/96, CM No. 488/96 (Ex. CW1/8) is reproduced hereunder:
“On deposit of the full amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- subject to adjustment of payments earlier made by the appellant, possession of the flat in question shall be handed over to the appellant, subject to final result of the appeal. Exparte order dated 17th March, 1996 is modified to this extent.
The application is disposed of accordingly.”
Therefore, original allottee was to deposit Rs. 2,90,000/- in terms of the said order dated 9.4.2007. It is not out of place to mention here that the said LPA had been dismissed vide order dated 10.7.2001 for want of prosecution. Copy of the order Ex. CW1/7. Therefore, the LPA was not decided finally. In any case, the original allottee had to deposit Rs. 2,90,000/- towards the cost of the flat. The onus to prove the said fact was/is on the original allottee/complainant. If we calculate the payment to be made by the original allottee and shown to have been paid by him/by the complainant in the complaint and in her affidavit, the amount comes to Rs. 2,70,297/-. Therefore, it becomes crystal clear that the original allottee did not deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- in terms of the High Court order and also as per the demand made by the OP. Therefore, on the date of filing of the application for conversion of the flat from leasehold to freehold by the complainant in 2004 about 20,000/- were due to be paid towards the cost of the flat by the original allottee/complainant. Therefore, we hold that the impugned demand made by the OP was totally justified. We do not see that by doing so the OP committed any deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
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.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 20.5.2016
Case No. 468/06
20.5.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
