DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.532/2010
Sh. K. S. Raja Gopalan
Old No.10 NEW 33, Shoba Homes,
Beach Road, Kalakshetra Colony,
Basant Nagar, Chennai-600090 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Director
2nd Floor, D-Block,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
Newe Delhi-110023 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 09.08.10 Date of Order : 17.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S. S. Fonia, Member
Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the Complainant applied for allotment of a MIG flat under the “New Pattern Housing Scheme, 1979” on 24.09.1979 with the OP after depositing a sum of Rs.4,500/- vide receipt No.1449 of even date and the MIG flat was registered vide registration No.19622. The Complainant through his letter dated 01.08.1986 sought status of the allotment of his registration and also intimated to the OP about the new address for correspondence. The Complainant further states that pursuant to certain advertisements issued by the OP to switch over from MIG Scheme to Self Financing-II Scheme, he intimated his new address for future correspondence which was duly replied by the OP vide their letter dated 25.07.1989 at the new address of the Complainant asking him to submit certain documents for conversion of registration from MIG to S.F.S. This was rejected by the OP on account of delay of the application for conversion. Therefore, the Complainant continued to be registered under MIG category. The Complainant saw in the Hindu newspaper dated 20.01.85 issued by the OP under the caption “Expandable Housing Scheme, 1995” inviting application from all including the registrants wait listed under the New Pattern Housing Scheme, 1979 with further provisions that registrants under the MIG Housing Numbers 19954 onwards will have the priority on other applicants. Feeling serious apprehension the Complainant wrote a letter dated 20.01.1995 to OP requesting the information about his registration. Having not received any reply, the Complainant sent legal notice on 25.07.1995 to OP requiring it to intimate the current status of his registration No.19622. The OP replied that priority no. of the Complainant is 23602 and the OP had completed allotment upto 19953 only. The Complainant is said to have made various communications to the OP including personal visit but of no avail. Ultimately he moved an application under RTI Act on 26.01.06 to the OP seeking reply. The OP vide letter dated 11.08.06 replied that he was allotted MIG Flat No.298, Ground Floor, Sector 14, Pocket-B, Phase -II, Dwarka in a draw held on 15.09.1998 on cash down basis and the demand-cum-allotment letter had been issued to him in the block dated 20.02.1999 and 24.02.1999 at the earlier address i.e. 2-A/47, Sat Nagar, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi but, however, the same was received back undelivered by the OP; that as per demand-cum-allotment letter the cost of the flat was to be deposited by 25.05.1999 failing which the Complainant attracted automatic cancellation of allotment. The Complainant alleges that reply dated 11.08.2006 was manipulated and malafide information inter-alia blaming OP that “taking shelter of a baseless, afterthought and malafide defence that the Complainant had not intimated his Chennai’s address therefore sending the allotment letter at Chennai’s address does not arise,” “while the Complainant had/has all along been sending to the OP his new/changed addresses”. The Complainant states that he sent detailed reply to the OP explaining and pointing out entire correspondence regarding the time to time change of address by the Complainant vide letter dated 07.06.2007. The OP under the intervention of Core Centre vide letter dated 24.09.08 intimated to the Complainant that flat No.141, Ground Floor, Pocket-A, Sector-17, Phase-II, Dwarka, Delhi had been allotted to him with further information that allotment letter dated 08.09.08 “costing had been sent” to him. The Complainant took possession of the flat on 27.01.2009 after making the payment of the money demanded by the OP; that thereafter by application dated 11.05.09 the Complainant asked the OP to provide the details of costing of the flat imposed upon him. The OP vide letter/ reply dated 01.06.09 stated that cost of alternative allotted flat has been worked on the basis of old cost as on February, 1999 plus “7% interest for intervening period due to the fault of the OP.” Blaming OP for handing over the possession of the flat on 27.01.09 after a long delay of about 7 years due to apparent fault on the part of the OP and guilty of the deficient services provided by the OP and the Complainant has pleaded that he has been abstained from the enjoyment of his flat for 7 years. Feeling aggrieved by the act of OP for deficiency in service, he has moved this Forum with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs towards use and occupation charges of the flat since the Complainant has been abstained from enjoying his flat for 7 years because of illegal, irresponsible, unprofessional and arbitrary action of OP.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs towards mental and physical harassment and tension suffered by the Complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay amount of interest charged by the OP at the cost of flat @ 7% to the Complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of registration till the date of allotment of the flat.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.
OP in its written statement has denied the allegations made by the Complainant in his complaint on the following grounds:
- Since the Complainant had taken possession of the flat on 19.02.2009 and conveyance deed has also been executed between the Complainant and OP on 15.04.2009 and, hence, contract between the parties is a concluded contract. The Complainant wants to repudiate part of the concluded contract which he cannot be permitted to repudiate.
- The Complainant did not exhibit any protest while taking the possession of the flat and paying the amount as per the demand made by the OP.
- Question of pricing by claiming the interest charged by the OP on old cost plus 7% is one of the component of pricing and as such the same cannot be challenged under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The OP has further stated that on the basis representation made by the Complainant it was found that since the Complainant had given the intimation of his changed address vide letter dated 01.08.1986 and 01.06.1996 the competent authority accorded the approval for allotment of a new flat to the Complainant under the change of address policy. The OP further states that “Since the DDA was at fault therefore instead of 12% only 7% interest was charged.”
Accordingly, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. D.K. Gupta, Director (H-1) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed by the parties. OP has relied upon the following judgments:-
- DDA Vs. kamini Chopra 1 (1996) CPJ 285 (N.C.)
- Sushil Kr. Vs. DDA RP 1128/06 decided by the National Commission on 08.04.10.
- Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank 2007 (6) SCC 711
We have heard the arguments of the Complainant and have also examined the material placed on the record very carefully and dispassionately.
Now we straightaway formulate an issue, whether the relief prayed for is admissible to the Complainant or not?
Admittedly the Complainant was allotted MIG flat No.298, Ground Floor, Sector-14, Pocket-B, Phase-II, Dwarka in a draw held on 15.09.1998 on cash down basis. However, the demand-cum- allotment letter issued in block dated 20.02.1999 & 24.02.1999 was sent to the Complainant at 2-A/47, Sat Nagar, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi which was received back undelivered. The OP accordingly cancelled the allotment owing to non deposition of the requisite amount by due date i.e. 25.05.1999.
Owing to frequent representations of the Complainant under “change of address policy” the OP allotted a flat No.141, Ground Floor, Pocket-A, Sector-17, Phase-II, Dwarka vide allotment letter dated 08.09.2008. The Complainant paid the money as per the cost calculated by the OP.
The OP has categorically admitted that due to their fault interest of 7% instead of 12% has been charged from the Complainant. This fault is nothing but manifestation of their failure to dispatch the allotment letter dated 20.02.1999 & 24.02.1999 at old address instead of new address which the Complainant had intimated vide his letter dated 01.08.1986.
In view of foregoing documentary proof, omission on the part of OP not to take note of the new address for correspondence is established beyond doubt. Ex-facie, judgments relied upon by OP are not applicable to the facts of case in hand.
The Complainant has taken possession of the flat without any demur or protest thereby accepting the contract with OP by taking into consideration the old cost + 7% interest charged by OP and acceptance of allotment by DDA in 2008 without any protest, the claim of the Complainant towards interest and occupation charges melt into insignificance.
As soon as the Complainant paid the amount calculated by the OP in respect of the Flat No.141, Ground Floor, Pocket-A, Sector-17, Phase-II, Dwarka vide demand-cum-allotment letter dated 08.09.2008 and took possession of the flat on 27.01.2009 without any protest, the Complainant ceased to be ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief.
In view of the above discussion, we are constrained to hold that Complainant has failed to raise any consumer dispute. 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 17.05.16.
(S. S. FONIA) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
