DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.315/2008
Shri Jagdish Bhakru (since deceased)
Through his legal heirs
i. Mrs. Shakun Bakhru
ii. Ms. Kavita Bakhru
iii. Mr. Akshay Bakhru
iv. Ashit Bakhru
All R/o
28, Pusa Road,
New Delhi-110005 ….Complainants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, near INA Market,
New Delhi ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 19.05.08 Date of Order : 16.04.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that flat bearing No.724, Phase-I, MIG first floor, Sector-17, Pocket-A, Dwarka, New Delhi was allotted in the name of his father late Sh. Leela Ram Bhakhru vide allotment letter dated 03.04.2003-07.05.2003 vide file No. M 312(1722)2003/NPRS/DN; later he died on 12.06.1985 and after his death the Complainant became entitled to the allotment of the said flat. After the death of his father, he approached the OP for restoration of the allotment of the said flat. OP vide letter dated 20.09.2004 requested him to furnish certain documents viz. relinquishment deed, affidavits, indemnity bond and registration card and proof of residence etc. which were duly submitted in the office of OP but till date the allotment of the flat has not been restored/substituted/transferred in his name. The complainant has stated that he was told that the allotment of the flat had been cancelled which according to him could not be cancelled by them without taking due process of law and without informing the allottee and/or the legal hairs of the original allottee. Since then, the Complainant has been continuously knocking the doors of OP from the year 2004 but OP has not listened him. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complaint has been filed with the following prayer:-
Direct the OP to restore the possession of the flat 724, Phase-II, MIG, First Floor, Sector-17, Pocket-A, Dwarka, New Delhi to the Complainant forthwith and that cancellation, if any, be withdrawn.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that as per the statement given by the Complainant himself in para No.1 of the complaint, the father of the Complainant had died on 12.06.1985; that the allotment of MIG flat No.724, First Floor, Pocket-A, Sector-17, Phase-2, Dwarka, Delhi was made in favour of the Complainant’s father in a draw of lots held on 28.03.2003 on hire purchase basis; a demand–cum-allotment letter with block dates 30.04.2013-07.05.2003 was sent at the address 28, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the said demand–cum-allotment letter (DAL) was duly received by the Complainant. It is further submitted that after receipt of DAL, the Complainant alongwith his brother Shri Vijay Bakhru made a representation dated 04.07.2003 to the OP and requested that the said allotment may please be cancelled and amount of Rs.4500/- deposited be refunded after mutation as they were not interested in purchasing the said flat due to death of their mother and father. On receipt of the letter dated 04.07.2013, the case of the Complainant was processed for cancellation and the flat bearing No.724, Phase-2, MIG First Floor, Sector-17, Pocket-A, Dwarka was cancelled on 25.07.2003 and a letter dated 13.08.2003 was issued to the Complainant intimating the cancellation of the flat in question and also requesting the Complainant to furnish the required documents for mutation before issuing the refund cheque in his favour. OP has further stated that the Complainant has not completed the formalities to carry out the mutation for issuing a refund of cheque. As per the practice in DDA, where the allottee expires before the allotment and after the allotment the legal heirs of the allottee applies for cancellation and refund of registration money, first a mutation is done in favour of the legal heir before issuing a refund of cheque. It is a well established principle of law that Consumer Forum cannot act as a recovery court. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed replication to the written statement of OP. It is inter-alia stated as under:
“It is also submitted that the Complainant never requested the Respondent to cancel the flat and it is the Respondent was responsible for not guiding the Complainant in a proper way and did not at all give him the proper forms and whenever he went to the office of DDA for proper guidance, no proper guidance was given by the Respondent to the Complainant.”
“It is denied that the complainant had the intention to cancel the flat and on account of the differences in the brothers, the Respondent cannot be allowed to take the plea that out of two brothers, one was ready to cancel the flat. No proper procedure was ever followed by the two brothers to cancel the flat and demanded the deposited amount. It is also submitted that under the provisions of Allotment Rules, the Respondent was bound to offer the flat to all the legal heirs of the allottee. The plea of cancellation being taken by the Respondent is not only illegal but devoid of any legal force.”
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.
No written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments of the Counsel for OP and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The Complainant vide letter dated 04.07.2003 requested the OP for cancelation (surrender) of the flat allotted vide demand letter dated 30.04.2003 of Sh. Leela Ram Bhakru whereby the Complainant had informed that their father and mother had since passed away and they were not interested in purchasing the flat being the sons and legal heirs (copy Ex. RW-1.) The OP vide letter dated 13.08.2003 informed the Complainant to submit the documents for cancellation of the flat and to refund of the amount of registration of Rs.4500/- (copy Ex. RW-1/B). The Complainant vide letter dated 08.01.07 requested the OP to revoke the cancellation of flat on the ground that it was subject to confirmation only after mutation (we mark the document as Annexure-A for the purpose of identification). The OP vide letter dated 03.04.07 requested the Complainant to submit the documents for mutation so that the case could be proceeded further (we mark the document as Annexure-B for the purpose of identification).
In view of the above, it transpires that the flat was allotted in the name of the Complainant’s father who had already died in 1985 and the Complainant and his brother requested for cancellation of flat on 04.07.2003 but did not submit the documents as per the requirement for mutation for refund of the registration charges. The Complainant filed an application in the year 2007 for restoration of flat. The Complainant has not filed any proof that he had submitted all the required documents for cancellation of the flat or request for refund of money or restoration of flat.
In the present case, the Complainant had surrendered the flat out of his free will by submitting an application dated 04.07.03 and the same was accepted by the OP as per their policy. Therefore, he is not a consumer of the OP. Even otherwise, the conduct of the Complainant himself is very reprehensible and condemnable since he himself was playing a game of hide and seek with the OP. Therefore, no deficiency of service is made out against the OP. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service. We dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost.
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 16.04.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
