DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.1045/2007
Sh. D. N. Khattar
S/o Sh. T. D. Khattar
R/o RA-112, Inderpuri,
New Delhi ……Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
A-Block Vikas Sadan
Behind INA Market,
New Delhi-110023 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 21.09.07 Date of Order : 13.01.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was the successful allottee of plot (sic) No.120, Pocket-1, Phase-II, Sector-13 Dwarka. vide allotment-cum-demand letter No.27579 dated 15/21.07.2003. The flat was allotted to him on hire purchase basis and the cost of the flat was to be paid in 120 monthly installments of Rs.6706/- each. He made a lumpsum payment of Rs.6 lakh vide challan No.21003 dated 08.12.2003 and he also paid Rs.2 lakh vide challan No. 31647 dated 12.01.2005. As per terms and conditions of the allotment-cum-demand letter of OP they should have given the possession of the flat within 15 days of such payment. He sent several letters to the OP for the possession of the flat but after rigorous follow up he received a possession letter dated 25.08.05 but when he met the Junior Engineer of OP at the site he was shocked to see there were many discrepancies in the flat which needed repairs and the JE of the OP assured him to do the needful within 15 days and he will get the possession but when no response was received he sent a letter dated 22.09.05 to the OP. The OP instead of handing over the possession of the flat they demanded a sum of Rs.3,91,509/- towards balance cost and also amount of penalty of Rs.1,34,79.06 in addition to conveyance charges. He made the payment on 15.12.05. The OP gave the possession slip No. M-312 (1972) 03/DW/NP/2595 dated 25.08.05 which was duly acknowledged by him on 20.12.2005 and hence he had received the possession of the flat on 20.12.2005. Therefore, OP is guilty of gross negligent, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and is liable to compensate the complainant for causing undue mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay interest on the amount deposited by him. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the money paid by the Complainant i.e. Rs.8 lakhs for the period from 12.01.2005 till the date of delivery of actual possession of the flat i.e. upto 20.12.2005 to the Complainant as compensation.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation in general and special as well as damages for causing harassment, mental pain and agony.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.5,500/- towards cost of litigation.
OP in the written statement has stated that the Complainant vide application No. 41434 got himself registered for allotment of MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. He was issued a priority number 36824 against his registration No. He was declared successful for the allotment of MIG flat No.120, 3rd Floor, Pocket-1, Phase-II, Sector-13 Dwark through computerized draw held on 30.05.03 on hire purchase basis. The demand–cum-allotment letter was issued to him on 15/21.07.03 to deposit the cost of the flat as per scheduled mentioned therein. The last date of making the initial payment was 18.12.2003 (with interest) and the balance premium of the flat was to be deposited in 120 monthly installments @ Rs.6707/- each w.e.f. 10.11.03 but the Complainant failed to deposit the demanded amount as per schedule mentioned therein. Instead of making the payment, he sent a letter dated 14.08.03 with a request for change of accommodation from 3rd floor to ground floor. The request of the Complainant was examined but could not be acceded to by the competent authority and intimation in this regard was sent to him on 29.08.03 with a request to follow the terms and conditions of the demand–cum-allotment letter dated 15/21-.07.03 or apply for refund of registration money by furnishing the requisite documents but he failed to do so. As he had not deposited the cost of the flat, a show cause notice was issued to him on 19.03.04. Despite this he failed to make the payment. Thus, the allotment of the flat was cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 06.12.04. Thereafter, he at his own deposited a sum of Rs.6 lakhs vide challan No. 21003 dated 08.12.04 and Rs.2 lakh vide challan No. 31647 dated 12.01.05 and furnished the required documents. Since the allotment of the flat had already been cancelled by the OP and he had deposited the demanded amount after that his case was examined for restoration of the allotment and the allotment of the flat was restored by the OP vide order dated 31.05.05. Thereafter completion of all the formalities the possession letter was issued to him on 25.08.05 and he took over the possession of the flat on 20.12.2005. After completing all the formalities the conveyance deed was executed by the OP on 19.04.06. Since there was no delay on the part of the OP on account of handing over the possession and execution of the conveyance deed of the flat, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any interest/claim as prayed in the complaint. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP. It is inter-alia stated that “cancellation information/letter was never received by the complainant and the payments were made by 12.1.2005 and possession given on 20.12.2005. It is submitted that in response to possession letter dated 25.8.2005, the complainant visited the site office on 26.8.2005 and met J.E. Mr. R.N. Gupta, the defects in construction etc. were noted down by him. But despite requests, possession was not given in time.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. O.P. Gupta, Director (H) I has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the OP but no arguments have been advanced on behalf of complainant despite opportunities given in this behalf.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant was allotted a MIG flat No.120, 3rd Floor, Pocket-1, Phase-II, Sector-13 Dwark through computerized draw held on 30.05.03 on hire purchase basis vide demand–cum-allotment letter dated 15/21.07.03. The last date of making the initial payment (with interest) was 18.12.2003 and the balance premium of the flat was to be deposited in 120 monthly installments @ Rs.6707/- w.e.f. 10.12.03. However, according to the documents filed on behalf of OP, the Complainant vide letter dated 14.08.03 requested the OP for change of accommodation from 3rd floor to ground floor (copy Ex. DW-1/2). The OP vide letter dated 29.08.03 (copy Ex. DW-1/3) informed the Complainant that his request could not be acceded as per the policy of DDA/OP. The Complainant failed to deposit the amount, OP vide letter dated 19.03.2004 (copy Ex. DW-1/4) issued a show cause notice to the Complainant to deposit the amount. As the Complainant failed to make the payment of the cost of the flat, OP vide letter dated 06.12.04 cancelled the allotment of the flat (notings Ex. DW1/5). The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6 lakhs vide challan No. 21003 dated 08.12.04 and Rs.2 lakhs vide challan No. 31647 dated 12.01.05. As the OP had already cancelled the allotment of flat the case was examined by the competent authority and restoration of allotment was regularized (copy of notings Ex. DW-1/9). The OP vide letter dated 25.08.05 issued a possession letter to the Complainant (copy Ex. DW-1/7). The Complainant took over the possession of the flat on 20.12.2005 (copy Ex.W-1/8). It may be correct that after receiving the possession letter the complaint might have found certain defects in the flat which required repairs; that OP taken about 4 months in carrying out the repairs and possession was given to the complainant on 20.12.2015 due to that reason only. But this act cannot be term an act of deficiency in service.
After completing all the formalities and the payment made by the Complainant to the OP the OP vide letter dated 25.08.05 issued a possession letter to the Complainant and the Complainant took over the possession on 20.12.05. In the letter dated 20.12.2005 the Complainant has not mentioned anywhere that he has taken the possession of the flat under protest.
There is abundance of documentary evidence on the record that the complainant had not complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment-cum-demand letter dated 15/21.7.13 inasmuch as he did not deposit the initial amount and the instalments within time. His request for change of accommodation from third floor to ground floor had been rejected by the OP and he has asked to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment-cum-demand letter. He did not do so. After issuing show-cause notice to him the allotment of the flat allotted to him had been ultimately cancelled. Only thereafter he woke up from a deep slumber and deposited Rs. 8,00,000/- in the manner indicated hereinabove. He has suppressed all these very important and material facts in the complaint. Had he disclosed these facts in the complaint, the facts of the complaint would have perhaps been decided then and there. Hence, he has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and has filed a false and frivolous complaint. By doing this, he has not only wasted the precious time of this Forum but has also made the OP to contest the complaint and to spend some handsome amount of money on engaging an Advocate, making pleading and photocopies of documents and wasting unnecessary time of the concerned officials of OP. We dismiss the complaint with special costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the OP within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.
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 13.01.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
By D K Yadav
