DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.48 of 2006
Sh. Pishori Lal (since deceased)
through his LRs.
i. Smt. Tripta Rani
ii. Sh. Chanda Bhola
iii. Sh. Ashish Bhola
iv. Sh. Rattan Bhola
All R/o 201, Dr. Mukerji Nagar, Delhi.
v. Ms. Sonia Kamboj
R/o C-136, Gali No.6 Krishna Nagar,
New Delhi
vi. Smt. Pooja Sarwan
W/o Sh. Maonj Sarwan
R/o B-361 Pandav Nagar, Delhi ….Complainants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 28.01.06 Date of Order : 19.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
During the pendency of the complaint, the Complainant died on 06.03.06 and the LRs of the Complainant were substituted vide order dated 07.09.06.
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that in the year 1979 he booked a MIG flat with the OP under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 and deposited a sum of Rs.4500/- vide receipt No.145521 on 18.09.1979. He was allotted registration No.19926/NP/MIG/20.05.80 with priority No.15080 by the OP. In the year 1989, when the OP failed to fulfill its commitment, the OP gave an option for change of the booking from NPRS-1979 Scheme to (SFS) Self Financing Scheme by the booking holders. On 05.04.1989 he requested the OP for conversion of the flat from the MIG flat under NPRS to the SFS and he filed all the documents with the OP. The OP vide letter dated May 1989 (sic) requested him to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- as processing fee for conversion for registration from MIG to SFS and he deposited the same on 22.05.89 vide receipt No. 920 and he also deposited Rs.15321/- as the difference in interest towards conversion from MIG to SFS and deposited vide challan No. 331216 on 25.09.89. The OP vide letter dated 13.10.89 required his photograph and signatures duly attested by Class One Gazetted Officer and the same were deposited by him with the OP. He received a letter dated 31.7.1990 from the OP that his request for conversion from MIG to SFS had been acceded to. On number of occasions he visited the office of the OP and requested for allotment of the flat under the SFS scheme. The OP always stated that all conversion cases would be considered after the allotment of the total flats booked under the original SFS scheme. Lastly he visited the OP’s office on 28.11.05 and requested the OP for allotment of the flat but on seeing the record the OP informed him that his case had already been rejected and he is not entitled to any allotment but the OP did not show or issued any letter regarding rejection of his allotment or entitlement to any flat. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant has prayed for directing the OP to allot a flat under the Self Financing Scheme on the rates prevalent in 1979 or 1984 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost beside interest on the principal amount of deposit as per policy.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the Complainant filed an application for registration under the NPRS Scheme, 1979 and deposited Rs.4500/- as registration money and his priority No. was 15080. They announced a scheme for conversion of registration from MIG to SFS-III and the Complainant made an application under the said scheme and deposited the differential registration amount and his request for conversion was acceded to. They made various releases from time to time under the SFS and the registrants had to apply from time to time in the release of the flats published by the OP. It appears that the Complainant had not applied under any of the releases. The SFS-IX was launched in the year 1996 whereby all the registrants of SFS were advised to apply for allocation/allotment of flat as that was the last opportunity but the Complainant did not apply under the said release of allotment of the flat and as per the terms and conditions of the SFS they had a right to close the scheme. Thus after affording opportunities to all the registrants the scheme was closed. Since the Complainant never applied in any scheme for allocation/allotment of the flat, therefore he could not be allotted any flat. However, his registration amount can be refunded to him with interest as per the policy of DDA after receipt of the documents from the Complainant. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Complainant through his LRs has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP and has denied that he never applied in any scheme for allotment of the flat. It is stated that the LRs of the Complainant opened the website of the DDA and found that the name of the Complainant was appearing in the allotment list and against the registration of the flat to the Complainant, flat bearing No. 205, category M, Sector-25, locality RO pocket-I, ground floor was allotted in the name of the Complainant but the OP never brought the factum of the said allotment to the (notice of) Complainant. Therefore, the OP has concealed the material facts and hence the Complainant is entitled to the allotment of the flat once it has been shown to have been allotted to the late complainant.
Affidavit of Sh. Chandan Bhola, son and one of the LRs of the deceased Complainant has been filed in evidence. On the other hand affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar, Director (H-1) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP.
We have heard the arguments of the Counsel for OP and have also gone through the file very carefully. No arguments have been advanced on behalf of the complainant despite opportunities given in this behalf.
The only controversy to be decided in the complaint is, whether the deceased complainant had not been allotted any flat under the SFS Schemes. According to the OP, the deceased complainant had never filed application for allotment of any flat in the SFS Schemes. On the other hand, the case of the deceased complainant in complaint was that he was never allotted any flat. In the replication filed by the LRs of the deceased complainant, they have taken an all together different stand. According to the averments made in the replication, the deceased complainant had applied in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 6th A SFS Schemes but he was never allotted any flat; that after opening the website of the DDA by one of the LRs of the deceased complainant it came to be transpired that flat bearing No. 205, category M, Sector-25, locality RO pocket-I, ground floor had been allotted in the name of the deceased complainant but the OP had never brought this fact to his notice. Thus it would be evident that in the replication the LRs of the deceased complainant have said a goodbye to the averments made in the complaint with regard to the very material facts. In his affidavit Sh. Chandan Bhola, one of the LRs of the deceased complainant has inter-alia stated about the allotment of above stated flat in the name of the complainant in March 1994. He has filed copies of the allotment details stated to be down loaded from the website of the OP as Ex. CW1/F. Thus, as per the averments of the LRs of the deceased complainant the said flat had been allotted to the deceased complainant in March 1994. However, deceased complainant did not make any mention about this fact and rather his case was that no flat was ever allotted to him. Had the complainant been alive he would have been asked to explain this fact about the allotment of the above stated flat to him. It was he who was conversant with the full facts of the case. It was he who would have in no uncertain words told whether he had ever been given any intimation about the allotment of the said flat to him or whether he had applied in 4th, 5th, 6th & 6th A SFS Schemes or not. Therefore, we hold that the LRs of the deceased complainant have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs. LRs shall, however, be entitled to refund of the registration money deposited by the deceased complainant with the OP according to relevant rules and regulations of the OP.
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.
(Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
Announced on 19.05.16.
Case No. 48/06
19.5.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
