| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.199/2016 Ramjilal S/o Late Shri Bhoop Singh H.N.-629, MIG Flat DDA, Pocket-2, Sector A-10, Narela, Delhi-110040 ….Complainant Versus The Hon’ble Vice Chairman DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA Market, New Delhi-110023 ….Opposite Party Date of Institution : 05.07.2016 Date of Order : 10.05.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Sh. U.K Tyagi - Vide instant complaint, it has been prayed to pass an award to allow (i) to pay interest @10% p.a. on the amount of Rs.6,72,652/- (paid for to purchase the flat No.617) for the period of 13 years and 7 months i.e. Rs/87,447.60/-; (ii) to pay interest @10% p.a. on the amount of Rs.45,680/- (paid for stamp duty charges for the period of 12 years i.e. Rs.54,816/-; (iii) to pay the fiscal loss of Rs.4,569/- on account return of conveyance deed papers of Flat No. 617; (iv) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards punitive compensation for mental agony; (v) to pay rent of Rs.14,40,000/-; (vi) to pay the cost of legal notice as Rs.550/-; (vii) to pay excess payment as Rs.76,476/-; (viii) to pay the transportation and documentation charges as Rs.50,000/- etc.
- The facts leading to the case are that the complainant was allotted a flat no.617, Pkt.-2, Sector A-10, Narela, Delhi under AAY-89 Scheme in 19.06.1996 with the total cost of Rs.5,75,141.25/-. The said allotment was withdrawn by the Complainant and accepted by the DDA (hereinafter referred to as OP). The Complainant deposited Rs.6,72,652/- with the consent of DDA. It may be relevant to mention here that said allotment was cancelled on the request of Complainant on 20.09.1996 and same was communicated on 07.10.1996. After some time, the Complainant made request to OP for restoration of same allotment. It was conceded and restoration of allotment was allowed subject to payment of cancellation charges, restoration charges and penalty of late payment. The Complainant made the payment to OP. He was issued the conveyance deed papers and the same were deposited in DDA on 07.08.1998 after getting them stamped from Collector of Stamps.
- Thereafter, it was noticed that said flat had already been allotted to some other person. As such, it was found a case of double allotment. OP then allotted another MIG flat bearing no.209, Sector A-10, Pkt.-4, Narela to the Complainant. OP also returned un-executed conveyance deed paper on 15.03.2010 of the earlier allotment i.e. flat no.617, Sector A-10, Pkt.-2, Narela. After some time, it was gathered that the said flat bearing no. 209 had already been allotted to Delhi Police in 2004. Ultimately, the OP allotted the flat bearing no. 629, Sector A-10, Pkt.-2, Narela. The OP also issued the demand-cum-allotment letter and possession was given in 09.07.2010. The Complainant had been requesting for the interest on the payments made so far from the date of initial allotment till possession was given in r/o flat no. 627. He further requested for award of compensation as he was put to inconvenience and mental agony for 13 years and 7 months for acts and omission of OP’s staff. It is averred that the OP had failed miserably in providing the services as required from the authorities. The complainant has referred the case of Veena Gandhi V/s DDA where the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi has dealt the case of double allotment in similar facts.
- On the other hand, the OP has accepted the facts mentioned above in respect of double allotment. It is true that earlier allotment was made in 1998 after restoration of allotment of said flat on having paid cancellation and other charges. It may be relevant to mention here that the OP could not submit its reply/ written statement within 45 days, hence, this Commission struck off the defence of the DDA. The Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 24.11.2016 in R.P No.313/2016 DDA V/s Ramji Lal set aside the above order subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost. Hence, the Written Statement. The OP also took preliminary objection with regard to time barring and closure of AAY Scheme vide its Written Statement. Also mentioned the ratio of some decided cases in its favour such as:-
- Policy decision of the DDA is binding on the parties in terms of judgment of DDA v/s C. Gurcharni 2003(7) SCC 301.
- Complainant is not covered under the definition of Consumer under Consumer Protection Act as per judgement of DDA v/s Kamini Chopra 1(1996) CPJ(Hon’ble National Commission).
- In terms of judgement of Sushil Kumar Sharma v/s DDA R.P. No. 1128/2006 dated 08.04.2010, where it was held that after the possession of the flat and making payment. The Complainant could not be heard to repudiate a part of transaction. In the instant case, the Complainant took the possession of flat no. 629, Sector A-10, Pkt.-2, Narela in 09.07.2010.
- The OP also averred that DDA had issued the demand-cum-allotment at the original demanded amount without any interest there upon. On the request of Complainant, the Sr. Account Officer of OP examined the accounts and a refund of Rs.529/- was shown/reported towards Complainant. Further, it is added that there is no policy to allow interest on differential stamp duty. Stamp duty is credited in the a/c head of Delhi Government, not DDA/OP.
- It was exhorted by the OP that the complaint is liable for rejection on the ground that the complaint filed by the Complainant was time barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in terms of judgement of Kerala Agro 2002 (3) SSC 165 and instant complaint is filed beyond two years of limitation. Further, it is stated that the exchange of letters between the parties does not extend limitation under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in terms of judgement of Ashok Kumar v/s DDA FA 183/07 dated 21.03.2013 passed by Hon’ble National Commission.
- Counsel for the OP also raised the point of limitation and again exhorted the ratio decidendi of the above mentioned case of Ashok Kumar for limitation and Shiv Kumar Sharma (Supra) during the oral arguments.
- This Commission had gone into the documents annexed with complaint more particularly the RTI reply dated 18.09.2014. This RTI reply clearly indicates that there is substantial question of fact which is directly related to the complaint. As such, the contention of counsel in terms of these judgements are not tenable as the facts of this complaint are having different connotation.
- This Commission has gone into the materials submitted in the form- Complaint alongwith annexures, evidence by way affidavits of both parties, written statement of OP and rejoinder of Complainant, written submissions of both the parties and oral pleading made by the respective counsels carefully. The ratios of various judgements as referred above in support of case of OP, have also been examined in detail. But it is found that the case was of double allotment as maintained by the OP in its language. The cause of action was continuous since first allotment, second allotment, third allotment and ultimately possession in 2010. Practically, the Complainant was denied the enjoyment of accommodation since 1998 to 2010. It is apparent that denial of enjoyment was due to gross negligence of the official of the OP. To this effect, one of official was issued warning for negligence by the OP as averred by the Complainant. This establishes this fact of negligence on the part of officials of the OP.
- This Commission intends to weigh its decision in favour of the Complainant after having placed reliance on the ratio of judgement in the case of Veena Gandhi v/s DDA. The operative part of said judgement is as under:- “In the light of the above discussion the present petition is allowed. The respondent shall now issue fresh demand-cum-allotment letter and charge the same cost at which the earlier flat was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1991 and after giving due adjustment of the amounts already paid by the petitioner, the flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi shall be allotted to the petitioner. Since enormous delay has occurred in allotment of the said flat in favour of the petitioner for no fault of her, therefore, the respondent shall pay interest @12% on the amount of instalments as were deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier allotment for the intervening period reckoning from the date of earlier deposit and the date of recent allotment, besides costs of Rs.25,000/- for causing miseries in the life of the petitioner.”
- Since the instant case is of double allotment thrice and its facts are similar to the above mentioned case. The OP is clearly found deficient in service on having committed gross negligence on the parts of its employees. Accordingly, this Commission feels that as regards to pay interest @6% p.a. on the amount of Rs.6,72,652/- for the period of 13 years and 7 months from 1998 to July, 2010 may not be justified as the allotment of flat No. 629 (the last one) in 2009 was issued at original demanded amount (equivalent of Ist allotment) without any interest thereon; to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings as the Complainant had to suffer approximate 14 years; and to pay the litigation and transportation charges to the tune of Rs.10,000/- within 3 months from the date of this order failing which rate of interest shall be charged @9% p.a. till its realization. No compensation for stamp duty is considered allowable as same is got deposited in the a/c of Delhi Government which is not impleaded as party here. No rent is considered as allowable on the amount deposited by the Complainant as he got flat at the original demanded amount. As regards to excess amount, same can be reckoned with the official of OP. In view of above direction, the complaint is partially allowed.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties. | |
