DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 239/09
Smt. Prem Devi
Deceased
Wife of Late Sh. Brij Lall
Through her legal heir
Sh. Pratap Singh
Son of Shri Brij Lall
Resident of 167 Malik Pur
Tagore Park, Model Town,
Delhi – 110 009 -Complainant
Vs
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi – 110023 -Opposite Party
Date of Institution:16.03.2009 Date of Order: 08.06.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
The complaint has been filed in the name of the deceased person Smt. Prem Devi through LR. According to the complaint, Sh. Partap Singh is the only son and legal heir of Smt. Prem Devi wife of Sh. Brij Lall and she died on 5.10.1998. It is stated that Smt. Prem Devi had been allotted a flat No. M & N 243 A, Sarita Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi under Janta category under NPRS A/7110 scheme floated by the OP vide Registration No. 9900, Priority No. 4285 in the draw held on 25.2.1987 at the disposal cost of Rs. 36,500/- vide OP’s File No. J 187 (71)/SV/NP dated 10.3.1987 and complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 13,800/- vide various challan with the OP. It is stated that the required documents/papers were deposited by Smt. Prem Devi with the OP but the possession of the flat was not handed over to her despite her making requests and personal visits to the office of the OP. She was made to suffer a lot of mental and physical harassment. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the present complaint has been filed for issuing directions to the OP to hand-over the possession of the flat against deposit of balance amount and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for acts of commission and omission, causing harassment, mental tension, physical suffering and monetary loss to the complainant.
In the written statement, the OP has pleaded that the complaint is time barred u/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act and be dismissed. It has been inter-alia pleaded that the complaint is liable to be rejected because as per the records available with the OP, Smt. Prem Devi W/o Shri Om Prakash (not the present complainant Smt. Prem Devi W/o Brij Lal) had got herself registered for allotment of the Janta Flat under NPRS-1979 who was assigned priority No. 4285 against registration No. 9900; that she (Smt. Prem Devi W/o Om Prakash) had also intimated vide letter dated 23.9.1985 her changed address i.e. C-2/150, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi; that she was allotted a flat no. 243-A, Sarita Vihar in the draw held on 25.2.87; that Demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to her on 19.3.87 on the address 3919/17, Abdulla Building, Roshanara Road, Delhi which was her original address given in the registration application and thus the demand-cum-allotment was received undelivered from the postal authority with the remarks “left without address”; that later on, a letter dated 5.5.87 along with challan of Rs. 5000/- as part payment of the aforesaid flat was received from her wherein it was mentioned that the remaining payment would be made within a month’s time; that the said letter and the challan were having the signature on behalf of Smt. Prem Devi with the address KP-8, Pitam Pura, Delhi which did not tally with the address given in the registration application or in the changed address intimated to the OP. It is further stated as hereunder:
“Thereafter, another letter dated 16.7.87 was received from one Smt. Prem Devi W/o Late Shri Brij Lal (complainant), wherein it was mentioned that she of her own had made the balance payment and submitted all the required documents. She had not surrendered the registration Card nor the 4th copy of Bank Challan of Rs. 250/-. In the ration card, her address was mentioned as “167, Malik Pur, Delhi, whereas the other documents had the address of 3919/17, Roshan Ara Road, Delhi.
On the other hand, Smt. Prem Devi W/o Shri Om Prakash (not the present complainant) R/o C2/150, Yamuna Vihar reiterated her request in her letter dated 10.8.87 and 7.9.87 for issue of demand letter. She appeared in the VC’s public hearing. The then Vice Chairman, DDA ordered for lodging a complaint against the cheater. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged with the SHO, Kotla Mubarakpur vide letter dated 11.11.87.
Later on, it came to the notice that the flat No. 243-A, Sarita Vihar had already been allotted to someone in the draw held on 29.3.86.
Thereafter, Smt. Prem Devi W/o Shri Om Prakash (Not the present complainant) was allotted another flat No. 212-A, Sarita Vihar and the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to her on 29.12.87. After receipt of the required payment and documents, the possession letter of the flat No. 212-A, Sarita Vihar was issued to Smt. Prem Devi W/o Shri Om Prakash (Not the present complainant) on 9.5.88.”
It is stated that the signatures of Smt. Prem Devi W/o Shri Om Prakash (Not the present complainant) tallied with those signatures available on registration record. It is further stated that the case of Smt. Prem Devi W/o Sh. Brij Lal (complainant) was examined by the Vigilance Department of the DDA and closed vide letter dated 27.5.87. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder, allegations of negligence have been levelled against some officials of the OP.
Affidavit of Sh. Partap Singh has been filed in evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Neelam Chaddha, Director H/2 has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard Sh. Kewal Krishan Mutneja who claims himself to be the GPA of the Complainant and the counsel for OP. We have also gone through the record very carefully.
Original filed maintained by OP pertaining to allotment of flat in question has been retained by us on 12.5.2016. We have also very carefully perused the said file.
It is not out of place to mention here that Sh. Kewal Krishan Mutneja has filed the original GPA stated to have been executed in his favour by Sh. Partab Singh S/o Late Sh. Brij Lall and Smt. Prem Devi W/o Sh. Pratap Singh, R/o 167, Malik Pur, Taroge Park, Model Town, Delhi. The GPA is dated 13.4.2009. We mark the same as mark “AA” for the purposes of identification.
From a perusal of the case file and also the retained file it clearly transpires that correspondence between the allottee Smt. Prem Devi and the OP exchanged till May 1987 and thereafter no correspondence did take place between them. It is the case of the complainant himself that Smt. Prem Devi W/o of Sh. Brij Lal had died on 5.10.1998. During this period of 1987 till 5.10.1998 she did not do any correspondence with the OP. From a perusal of the retained file it transpires that Pratap Singh S/o Smt. Prem Devi, the present complainant sent a letter to the OP on 25.5.06 which was received in the office of the OP vide Dy. No. 18265 dated 1.6.2006. We have kept the Photostat copy of the said letter dated 25.5.2006 on the case file and mark it as mark ‘B’ for the purposes of identification. Thus, it would transpire that between 1987 and May 2006 complainant late Smt. Prem Devi wife of Sh. Brij Lal or her son Pratap Singh did not do any correspondence with the OP regarding allotment of the flat to her/him. The present complaint has been filed on 16.3.09. Therefore, the complainant is hopelessly time barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is hopelessly time barred.
Still we proceed to decide the case on merits.
Ex. OPW1/1 is the copy of the application form for registration under NPRS 1979 in which the name of the applicant, husband’s name and address of the applicant have been mentioned as Prem Devi W/o Sh. Om Prakash, 3919/17, Abdulla Building, Roshanara Road, Delhi. Ex. OPW1/5 is the copy of a letter dated 23.9.1985 sent by Smt. Prem Devi r/o C-2/150, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi to the OP. Thus, here the address of Smt. Prem Devi had been changed from Roshanara Road to Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. Again copies Ex. OPW1/8 and Ex. PW1/11 were sent by Prem Devi W/o Sh. Om Prakash, C-2/150, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi to the OP. Ex. OPW1/12 is the copy a certificate dated 9.5.1998 in respect of flat No. 212 A, M&N Block (Janta), Sarita Vihar, Delhi issued in the name of Smt. Prem, Devi W/0 Sh. Om Prakash whereby she was authorised to get electricity and water connections in the said flat. Ex. OPW1/15 is the copy of ration card of Sh. Om Prakash r/o C-2/150, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi where the name of his wife is mentioned as Prem Devi. Thus all these documents filed on behalf of the OP would clearly reveal that it was Smt. Prem Devi W/o Sh. Om Prakash who had applied for allotment of a Janta flat with the DDA and Smt. Prem Devi W/o Sh. Brij Lal was not in any manner concerned with the allotment.
It is not out of place to mention here that on 30.7.2015, some original documents were brought on behalf of the complainant. Photocopies of those documents were kept on the file and original documents were returned to the said attorney of the complainant. Photocopy of one of those documents is the copy of receipt No. 14860 dated 5.5.1987 whereby a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards payment of the Janta Flat No. M&N 243 A, Phase-I, Sarita Vihar had been deposited in the name of Smt. Prem Devi r/o KP-8, Pitam Pura, Mauraya Enclave, Delhi. As per the case of the OP, Smt. Prem Devi W/o Sh. Om Prakash had always intimated about the change of her address in the office of the DDA. We mark the said copy as mark ‘C’ for the purposes of identification. It is not the case of the complainant herein that his late mother or he had ever resided at any other place except the address given in the complaint. This fact clearly proves that the application for allotment of the Janta flat had in fact been made by Smt. Prem Devi W/o Sh. Om Prakash and not by the mother of the complainant i.e. Smt. Prem Devi W/o Sh. Brij Lal. Complainant has not filed any document to show that his late mother had ever applied for allotment of flat to her with the OP. No copy of application form has been filed on the record. It is, no doubt, true that there is some discrepancy about the number of flat inasmuch as somewhere it has been mentioned as 243 A and somewhere as 212 A but, however, in our considered opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove, the said discrepancy is not maintainable. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is devoid of any merit.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it 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.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 08.06.2016
Case No. 239/09
08.06.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
