DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 806/2007
Sheeba Varghese
67, Type III
North West Moti Bagh
New Delhi – 110021 …….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA, Delhi .……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 23.07.2007 Date of Order : 05.04.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that she hold the Power of Attorney in respect of flat No. 66-A, DIC, Janakpuri, New Delhi. She had purchased the above flat from the allottee Sh. Om Parkash Maggu on 29.2.1996. The flat was originally allotted to Sh. Om Parkash Maggu during August 1985 under Hire Purcahse Scheme and; that apart from the payment he had made at the time of Registration he was required to pay monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 668.36/- for 180 months from 10.10.85 onwards plus ground rent and service charges. As per the terms of allotment, if the allottee defaulted in timely payment of monthly installment, he was required to pay a penalty of 1% of the installment amount for the first month and 2% for the second month and @ 4% for the subsequent months. Sh. Om Parkash Maggu was not regular in the payment of monthly installments towards OP before selling the flat to her as out of 123 installments he had paid to OP only about 77 installments that too not adhering to due dates resulting in a huge penalty burden that she was bound to pay. After acquiring the flat the complainant had sincerely tried to clear the outstanding dues to OP as her income permitted and she paid an amount of Rs. 5042/- on 4.6.97 and Rs. 16041/- on 8.6.1998. During December 1998, OP had announced a Scheme, namely, “Amnesty Finance Scheme-1998”. As per the scheme, allottees of flats as well as Power of Attorney holders were assisted by DDA in obtaining loan from selected Financial Institutions for clearing the outstanding dues with OP. For availing the loan, the allottees/GPA holders had to clear all the dues with OP as well as to apply for conversion of the flat from leasehold to freehold. On receiving the application from the prospective beneficiary, the OP will calculate the outstanding amount against the flat allowing 75% discount in penal interest. She was one of the very first applicant (S.No. 5) under the scheme and had submitted her application enclosing the uptodate calculation and relevant documents on 11.12.98 to the OP. After continuous visits she was finally given the letter intimating the outstanding dues of Rs. 103098.65 on 30.12.98 at 3.00 p.m. when the scheme was about to end on 31.12.1998. The complainant has further stated that she had approached the Nirman Vihar Branch of Syndicate Bank who were the nodal officers of the Bank for the Scheme of obtaining the loan. The Bank readily agreed to provide her the loan. The Tripartite Agreement was accordingly signed by her and given to the Bank who had agreed to take it up with the OP for signing the agreement. Though the Scheme was got extended a number of times but OP steadfastly refused to sign the Tripartite Agreement within the currency of the scheme without any valid reason. During this period, complainant had approached the Ministry of Urban Development when it was revealed by the Chief Manager of the Syndicate Bank that the OP’s officials had refused to sign the agreement despite her repeated personal efforts and visits to DDA but, however, the OP had replied the Ministry that the complainant’s complaint is against the Bank as the Bank had never taken up the matter with the OP. The Manager of the Bank had given her the signed agreement so that she could approach the OP for signing the agreement. Complainant has further stated that despite her repeated visits and representations under the Public Grievances system of DDA/OP, the OP had not signed the agreement and returned to her/Bank. Finally, she had met the Vice Chairman, OP on 23.2.2000. However, the Vice Chairman’s Office (or any offices of DDA) steadfastly denied giving a conclusive reply to her representation within a span of seven years denying an opportunity to her to take legal remedies for her grievances. She was informed by OP on 19.2.2007 that the allotment of the flat had been cancelled. She appeared before the Court of Estate Officer of OP where she was advised to deposit Rs. 1,44,890/- in order to stop the eviction proceedings. She deposited the amount but she has not received any communication from the OP regarding allotment of flat. Pleading deficiency on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to convert her flat into freehold against the original dues calculated during December 1998 i.e. Rs. 1,03,098.65 and refund the excess amount she was made to pay, to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony, financial loss, loss of man days spent visiting offices of DDA. However, it is stated that “I am no longer staying in the house or I am no longer interested in the case”.
In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that the Flat No. 66-A, D-1C, Janakpuri was allotted to Sh. Om Prakash Maggu in the draw held on 19.5.85 on hire purchase basis. The demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him on 5.8.1985 with request to deposit the cost of flat as per schedule mentioned therein. The balance amount was to be deposited in 180 installments at the rate of Rs. 668.36/- each commencing from 10.10.85. OP announced Amnesty Finance Scheme in 1998. The complainant applied under the scheme. She also applied for loan from Syndicate Bank under this scheme to pay the balance amount to the OP. She submitted a tripartite agreement on 19.5.99 but due to certain shortcomings in the agreement the same could not be signed. A letter was sent to her on 20.7.99 regarding the shortcomings in the agreement but the reply of the complainant was received on 14.9.99 i.e. after closure of the said scheme (which was closed on 31.8.99). She appeared before the Vice Chairman of OP and her request was examined and VC ordered that the benefit of the said scheme be extended to her. On the tripartite agreement, she incorporated only the amount of outstanding dues upto 31.5.99 whereas interest liability was increased by that date but she was reluctant to pay the interest beyond that period unless OP explains her for inordinate delay in signing the tripartite agreement. However, the tripartite agreement was signed with the approval of the competent authority considering the case under the said scheme and was sent to Syndicate Bank on 19.12.2000. The bank declined to grant the loan to her on the plea that the existence of the said scheme was expired. The Bank was apprised that her case had been considered under the said scheme and she may be granted the loan and simultaneously the complainant was advised to take up the matter with the Bank to get the loan but no further progress was received from either side. On 30.7.03, she was advised to apply under Penalty Relief Scheme-2001 to get relief of penalty but she did not take any interest. Thereafter, OP requested the Syndicate bank and the complainant to attend the meeting but instead of her appearance, her husband attended but no one from the Bank attended the meeting. Since no cooperation was being extended by the complainant as well as the Bank, the OP issued show-cause notice but the same was un-delivered and received back and the same was got pasted at site through the DDA field staff of Enforcement (Housing), DDA. Since she failed to deposit Rs. 1,44,890/-, the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 19.2.2007. It is stated that the complainant had deposited the above said amount but after cancellation of the flat. The case of the complainant for restoration of flat is under examination. The OP has further stated that the request for conversion of flat from leasehold to freehold is processed only when the allottee/GPA applies for conversion of flat by filing conversion application, depositing conversion fee and furnishing the requisite documents. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. O.P. Gupta, Director (H) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments.
We have carefully gone through the file.
We have reason to believe that during the pendency of the complaint, the flat in question has been restored to the complainant. It is so clear from an application moved on behalf of the complainant on 23.9.10. We mark the said application as Mark AA for the purposes of identification. Vide this application/intimation complainant informed the Forum that in terms of the direction issued by the OP vide letter dated 19.5.2010 to deposit the clearance dues of Rs. 21,471/- on account of penalty charge and Rs. 10,000/- on account of restoration charge, she deposited the said amount of Rs. 31471/- on 26.7.2010 vide Challan No. 24389. However, she has stated in the application/intimation that as there was no provision in the deposit slip to mention “Protest”, she moved the present application to lodge her protest with regard to deposit.
The complainant received the letter from the DDA on 19.5.2010. She deposited the said amount on 26.7.2010 but she moved the present application on 23.9.2010 i.e. after much delay and perhaps after due deliberation and consideration. Had this amount been deposited by her under protest, she would have certainly moved this application immediately after deposit of the amount and at least on 29.7.2010 when the matter was fixed before this Forum and was adjourned to 23.9.2010.
The complainant bought the flat in question from the original allottee by fully knowing that the original allottee was in arrears of installments. Despite that she deposited only Rs. 5042/- on 4.6.1997 and Rs. 16041/- on 8.6.1998. Thereafter, she did not deposit any amount till she received the cancellation letter in respect of the flat in question and appeared before the Estate Officer of the OP and deposited the amount of Rs. 1,44,890/- in order to protect her eviction from the flat in question. In order to show her bonafide she would have deposited some amount towards payment of instalments in respect of the flat in question much before 30.12.1998 when she was intimated about the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 1,03,098.65p. She even did not care to deposit the said amount of Rs. 1,03,098.65p or any part thereof after 30.12.1998 which shows that the complainant herself was not acting in a bonafide manner and she had the intention to take undue benefit for her own wrongs. In any case, it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence.
In view of the above discussion and the fact that the possession of the flat in question has already been restored to the complainant during the pendency of the complainant, we hold that no deficiency in service has been proved against the OP/DDA. Accordingly, 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 5.4.2016
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 806/2007
5.4.2016
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
