DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.37/16
Shri Rajesh Kumar
S/o Shri Gopi Lal Verma
R/o H.No. C-248,
Gali No. 8, Janakpuri
P.O. Sahibabad, Ghaziabad
U.P.-201005.
…Complainant
Versus
Vice Chairman, DDA
LIG (Housing) Wing Vikas Sadan,
Block-D, 2nd Floor, INA
New Delhi-110023.
Saloni Avas Sakar Co-opHousing Society Ltd.
109-A, Gazipur
Delhi-110091. Opposite Parties
Registrar Co-operative Societies
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Courts Building, Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001. Performa Party
Date of Institution :02.02.2016
Date of Order :17.06.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
Complainant has sought the relief to re-allot the Flat No.782, B-2 Fourth Floor, Lok Nayak Puram, New Delhi-110041 and compensation towards mental agony/harassment etc.
The brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant applied for allotment of DDA (hereinafter referred to as OP-1) under NPRS-1979 vide receipt No.104595 dated 27.10.1979 and deposited Rs.1500/-. The OP-1 issued certificate of Registration bearing No.45896 dated 16.6.1980. The OP in 1989 launched a scheme under Avas Sakar Yojna and the persons who had applied to OP-1 for allotment of flat, if they express willingness for becoming a member of the Cooperative Group Housing Society under DDA’s action plan i.e. Avas Sakar Yojna they can do so. The complainant in accordance with the said scheme, provided the copy of the registration certificate and deposit receipt etc. The complainant also informed the OP-1 about the change of address. His name was sponsored by OP-1 to “Saloni Avas Sakar Co-operative Group Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as OP-2). The said Co-operative Housing Society i.e. OP-2 sent a letter dated 29.6.89 stating that the so called society i.e. OP-2 had been sponsored by OP-1 for registration to Registrar of Co-operative Society. The copy of said letter is annexed as Annexure-5 & 6. Annexures shows that OP-1 & OP-2 were well aware about the new address of the complainant. It is OP-1 who sponsored his name and address to the OP-2 so he got the letter from OP-2. Meanwhile, the complainant deposited Rs.110/- and Rs.6500/- vide receipt No.016 and 018 dated 8.7.1989 & 18.11.90 respectively. Copy of said letter is annexed herewith Annexure 7 & 8 respectively. The complainant again changed his address to 101A, Brindavan garden, near Aaradhana Cinema, Sahibabad, Distt.-Gaziabad, UP. The same was duly sent to OP-1 & OP-2 . To this effect, the copy of intimation are annexed as Annexures 10 & 11.
The complainant was informed vide RTI reply that the complainant was allotted a flat vide draw on 23.3.2006 - details of which are as under:-
Flat No.780 (LIG), Pocket B-2, Lok Nayak Puram
The alleged demand-cum-allotment letter was sent on 20.7.2006 with the direction to deposit the demand on or before 16.1.2007. The allotment of the said flat was cancelled on account of non-payment. The OP-1 also informed vide letter dated 13.11.2014 asserting that the said allotment was cancelled as mentioned above and scheme i.e. NPRS-79 has also been closed through Public Notice issued in 22.11.2012 and 15.04.2014. Same was published in all leading newspapers for all purposes. The copy of said letter is exhibited as Ex CW-1/13. OP-1, on the other hand, filed his written statement inter-alia raising preliminary objections that the complaint is time-barred under Section 24A of CP Act, 1986 in terms of judgment of Keral Agro 2002 (3) SCC 165.
OP-1 further stated that NPRS-79 scheme had already been closed and the complainant is not entitled for allotment of flat in terms of the judgment of Poonam Verma Vs DDA 2007 (13)SCC 154. OP-1 further exhorted that the OP-1 being statutory body, the policy decision has binding force in terms of judgment of DDA Vs Vijaya C. Gurcharni 2003 (7) SCC 301. OP also asserted on the ground that Public Notice issued by DDA is valid in terms of judgment of Sunil Bharti Vs. DDA (Supreme Court & National Commission). The OP-1 also further stated that the terms & conditions of the allotment are binding on the parties in terms of judgment of Skyline Contractors Vs. State of UP & Others. The RTI reply and legal notices cannot be termed continuing actions.
OP-1 accepts that the complainant was allotted LIG Flat No.7800, 4th Floor, Pkt B-2, Lok Nayak Puram against Registration No.45896 (NPRS, 1979) in a draw held on 23.7.2006. DAL was issued to him on 20.7.2006 (it is not understood how, DAL was issued before the date of draw) DAL was issued to his earlier address of Albert Square. Cancellation letter was also sent to this address. DAL was not received back as maintained by OP-1 meaning thereby the service was considered to have been served upon the registrant. As per Group Housing, the registrant was not allotted any plot or flat under Awas SAKAR YOJNA under the said scheme. The OP-1 has asked complainant to place any document which prove to this effect that OP-1 was informed about the change of address at any stage.
The complainant has made Saloni Awas Sakar Co-op Group Housing Society Ltd. as OP-2 in its complaint. This Commission passed order dated 7.12.2017 as under:-
“Today the complainant and his counsel have made a statement thereby dropping OP-2 as unnecessary party”.
The complaint against OP-2 stand disposed of accordingly”.
OP-3 never made presence in the Commission. Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence by way of affidavit. Written statement is filed so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has examined the material placed on record minutely. Arguments were taken into account. The OP-1 has taken preliminary submissions while submitting its reply. The complainant has rebutted the preliminary submission/objections taken by the OP-1. The complainant has alleged that the OP-1 had deliberately concealed the fact of allotment of LIG flat notice to which could only be acknowledged to him through OP-1’s letter dated 13.3.2014 under RTI’s REPLY. The cause of action only arose 1st Jan.2016, when grievance case was disposed of by Grievances Cell, Urban Development Ministry, GOI. This Commission has also gone into this fact in detail and found that the complainant was being informed by OP-1 at the old address whereas he had intimated that OP-1 as well as the so called Society about the new address. Hence the objection of the OP to this effect is not found sustainable. It was also denied that the issues raised in the case of DDA Vs. Vijaya C. Gursharney (supra) are not similar to the instant case. The Public Notice as issued by DDA is valid in terms of judgment of Sunil Bharti Vs. DDA. Since no demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the complainant, hence, the fact of this case are not applicable here in this case. The complainant also laid emphasis on the Apex Court judgment in DDA Vs. Krishan Lal decided on 27.9.2011, the complainant here not only applied for allotment but kept on waiting for the allotment of flat. Allotment was made but never communicated, hence, it is clearly deficiency on the part of OP-1 and complainant has suffered harassment and irreparable loss due to deliberate negligence on the part of OP-1.
This Commission has also try to find out from the evidences so placed before us by OP-1 whether the OP-1 has some evidence which can prove beyond doubt that the DAL, cancellation letter etc. were sent at the address of complainant. Since the complainant was not residing at the address at which these letters were sent purportedly, hence these letters could have been returned but no such evidence was put forward. This Commission has no other alternative but to assume that the complainant was not informed about his allotment. At this score, we have no doubt that OP-1 is squarely falls short of its obligation. It is also pointed out that since the Public Notice to this effect of closure of scheme i.e. NPRS-79, the OP-1 can shrug off its obligation of allotment of flat in future but it has to bear the liability on account of deficiency in service as mentioned above.
This Commission could not understand the stand of complainant for allowing the OP-2 for deletion from the array of parties. It should have been allowed to continue because the complainant had deposited a good amount of Rs.6500/- towards the cost of land etc.
In nutshell, this Commission feels that the end of justice shall be met if the complainant is compensated by the OP -1 for its deficiency in service as established above. Accordingly, the OP-1 is directed to release the deposited amount of Rs.1500/- along with interest @ 9 per cent p.a. from the date of its deposition with OP-1 till its realisation and Rs. Twenty Five Thousand as compensation towards mental harassment/agony, litigation charges etc. within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the rate of interest shall be levied @10% p.a. on the above mentioned amount till its realisation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
