DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.54/2016

Sh. Girender Kumar Mishra

S/o Sh. J. L. Mishra

R/o B-2/45-A, Block B-2,

Keshavpuram, Delhi                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority

Through its Vice Chairman

Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,

New Delhi-110023                                                        ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution        : 22.02.16                 Date of Order               : 16.04.19            

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

Brief facts as stated by the complainant are:-

1. The complainant was registered with DDA (OP) under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS-1979) for allotment of LIG flat on making payment of the requisite registration deposit.
2. Priority of the complainant matured in the year 1990 and he was allotted a flat in Rohini, Delhi but the complainant surrendered the same and paid Rs.2,781/- for being considered again for allotment at the tail-end of the priority list. The tail end priority draw for LIG category was held by the DDA on 07.03.08. But the complainant’s name was not included in the list drawn on 07.03.08. It is averred that in the said draw, tail-end priority LIG registrants were allotted flats at the cost of Rs.10,70,000/- approximately.
3.  The complainant wrote various letters and visited OP’s office many a time to get his name included in the tail-end priority list.  Finally the OP included the name of the complainant in a draw held on 21.04.2011 in which he was allotted a flat in  Lok Nayankpuram, Delhi at total cost of Rs.14,02,357/- on cash down basis payable on or before 28.02.2012 which could however be paid later with interest. As the cost of the flat demanded by the OP was big amount for the complainant, he paid the full amount only on 20.05.2013 on account of which he was levied interest of Rs.2,43,004/- and restoration charges of Rs.10,000/- by DDA vide letter dated 25.09.2013 and which the complainant had no alternative but to pay.
4. It is next averred that the DDA issued possession letter of the said flat on 09.05.2014 and the complainant took the physical possession of the letter on 26.07.14.  Thereafter, the Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant was also executed by OP on 11.11.14. It is alleged that it was only in February, 2015 that the complainant came to know regarding the tail-end priority draw which was held by OP on 07.03.2008 in which flats were allotted to similarly situated person at a cost of Rs.10,37,290/-. It is next alleged that the complainant incurred losses due to the fault/lapse of the OP as the complainant was entitled to the allotment of the flat at the cost as on 07.03.08 when his name was liable to be put in the tail-end priority draw but was missed out by DDA he was charged/made to pay an extra sum of Rs.3,65,139/- on account of the fault/lapse of the OP. Therefore, it is prayed that OP be directed to refund the excess amount charged from the complainant towards cost of the demise flat alongwith interest @ 12% per annum alongwith Rs.1 lakh as compensation and litigation cost.

2. OP resisted the complaint inter-alia on the ground that the complainant has already taken the possession of the flat in question without protest. It is submitted that the complainant was declared successful for allotment of LIG flat in the draw held on 14.03.1990 on cash down basis.  The allotment stood cancelled due to non payment of the demanded amount which was intimated vide letter dated 27.03.1992.  The registrant was intimated to deposit the cancellation charges within 30 days so that his name be considered in the tail-end. The complainant deposited the cancellation charges thereafter he was intimated the priority number.  The name of the complainant was included in tail-end draw after clearing the backlog of NPRS/AAY registrants as per policy of DDA (OP). OP further submits that the name of the complainant was included in tail-end draw held on 21.04.14 and LIG flat under tail-end priority was allotted to the complainant on cash down basis. According to the tail-end policy as per circular dated 13.10.11 the costing of the allotted flat was worked out by Account (HAC) and the same was approved by the Competent Authority.
   1. It is next submitted that the complainant submitted a request letter for restoration of flat as he had failed to deposit the demanded amount within stipulated period i.e. upto 28.05.2012.  As per the request letter the complainant’s wife was a cancer patient and request for restoration was made on humanitarian ground which was duly accepted by the OP.  Delay of 358 days was regularized by OP subject to usual charges applicable.
   2. It is further submitted that the complainant without any protest deposited the demanded amount of DAL, took possession of the flat and got the conveyance deed executed. It was only after execution of the Conveyance Deed that the complainant submitted a representation to refund the excess payment. OP also replied to the RTI application filed by the complainant stating therein that the cost of the flat Rs.13,78,116/- has been charged for April 2011 i.e. the date of draw of the flat which comprised of Rs.5,54,116/- as land cost and Rs.9,24,034/- as construction cost.  It is, thus, prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit are filed by the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverting the version of OP. Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. R. K. Malhotra, Director (H) II has been filed on behalf OP.
4. Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
5. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also carefully perused the record.
6. It is pertinent to note that the complainant was allotted LIG flat on 14.03.1990 on cash-down basis which was cancelled due to non-payment of the demanded amount.  Thereafter, on the request of the complainant he was considered again and a tail-end priority number was given to him. It was as per the policy of the OP that the complainant’s name was included in the tail-end draw only after clearing the back log of NPRS/AAY registrants. Therefore,  the name of the complainant was added in the priority draw list as an when his number came.  The Forum does not find any irregularity in the conduct of the OP in this regard.
7. As regards the costing of the flat, it was according to the tail-end policy as per the circular dated 13.10.11 (which we mark as Mark-A for the sake of identification) which was taken out by the Housing Department of OP.  For ready reference circular dated 13.10.11 is reproduced as below:

1.       “In partial modification of Office Orders/Circulars issued from time to time regarding cost of the flats allotted under NPRS-79, Ambedkar Awaas Yojna and under various policies of DDA like wrong address policy, missing priority, tail-end priority etc., the cost of the flat in all the cases will be standard cost of the flats based on the basis of the plinth area rate and land rates as prevalent on the date of issue of demand cum allotment letter i.e. date when the demand letter under policy is issued. 

2.       Older cases will not be opened i.e. it should be effective only from the date of issue….”

Further it is noticed that delay of 358 days for the payment of the flat was condoned by OP subject to the usual charges applicable on humanitarian grounds which shows that OP has rather been considerate.

8. The complainant has relied upon three judgments rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court namely Onkar Nath Sharma Vs. DDA, W.P.(C) No.17802 of 2006, decided on 01.08.08, Krishan Kumar Gupta vs. DDA, W.P. No.2530/2012, decided on 29.05.13 and Smt. Attar Kaur V/s DDA, LPA No.184/2000, decided on 08.02.02.
9. Reliance upon Onkar Nath Sharma and other cases is wrongly placed. The cited cases pertain to missing priority category, that is where the registrant’s name was missed out from the draw of lots.  The present case does not fall in this category.  OP in its written statement has specifically pleaded that the complainant was intimated his priority number and his name was included in the tail-end draw after clearing the backlog of other registrants. In his rejoinder complainant has not disputed the aforesaid pleadings of OP. There is no rebuttal to the averment that he had been intimated his priority number. It is not the case of the complainant that registrants beyond his priority number were given preference over him and were considered in 07/03/08 draw of lots.  In the absence of any such pleadings complainant is not in missing priority category.
10. In the light of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint 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.

Announced on 16.04.19.