DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.90/2009
Sh. Tilak Raj
B-58, Vidya Vihar,
Hastsal Uttam Nagar,
Delhi-110059 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
through its Asstt. Director (Housing)
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 19.02.09 Date of Order : 11.03.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he had applied on 26.12.1989 under “Special Housing Registration Scheme for SC/ ST 1989” on hire purchase basis but the OP allotted him a flat on cash down basis. He sent 9 (nine) letters to the OP to convert the allotment from cash down to hire purchase as he had applied on hire purchase basis. He belongs to BPL and SC category and he was not able to pay an amount of Rs.9 lakh in lumpsum. He requested the OP to allot a flat on hire purchase but till date he has not been allotted a flat on hire purchase. Hence, it is prayed that the OP be directed to allot the flat on hire purchase basis and to pay litigation charges.
OP in the written statement has stated that the Complainant vide application No.10246 dated 26.12.89 got himself registered for allotment of LIG flat under Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989; he was assigned priority No.8364 against his registration No. 10246; on the turn of priority number he was allotted a MIG flat No. 296, 3rd floor, Pocket-C, Block B, Lok Nayankpura through the computerized draw held on 03.01.2004 on cash down basis. The demand–cum-allotment letter was issued on 20.07.2006 at his permanent address with a request to deposit the cost of the flat as per schedule mentioned therein; the last date of making the payment (with interest) was 16.01.2007 but the Complainant failed to deposit the same; thereafter, they issued a show cause notice on 19.03.2007 to the Complainant; in response to the show cause notice, the Complainant vide letter dated 02.04.07 informed them that he is unable to deposit Rs.8 lakhs and requested to consider his name for the next draw for the allotment of flat on Hire Purchase Basis; his request could not be acceded to; since he had failed to deposit the amount, the allotment of the flat was cancelled vide letter dated 15.06.07 with a request to submit the required documents for the purpose of refund of registration money; the Complainant made a representation dated 21.08.07 to consider his name in the next draw for allotment of flat; the request of the Complainant was examined but could not be acceded to; they sent a reply to the Complainant on 17.09.2007 with request to attend the office with the list of person whose name was kept for allotment of the flat in the next draw as he had mentioned the same in his letter but he failed to appear in the office; later on the Complainant sent request letter dated 12.12.07; his case was again examined and they replied on 30.05.08 and informed him that his request was examined and could not be acceded to as per policy; they sent a letter dated 13.07.07 with a request to the Complainant to apply for refund by furnishing the required documents but till date the Complainant has not submitted the required documents for refund of the registration amount. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP without giving any specific reply to the averments made in the written statement.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavits of Sh. S. K. Jain Director (H) and Shri A.K. Bisht, Director (H) have been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed. We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the Complainant had applied for a LIG flat under Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989 and he was allotted flat No.296, 3rd Floor, Pocket C, Block B, Loknayakpura on 03.01.04 on cash down basis. The demand–cum-allotment letter was issued on 20.07.06 and the last date of making the payment (with interest) was 16.01.07. The Complainant vide letter dated 02.04.07 informed the OP that he was unable to deposit Rs.8 lacs and requested the OP to consider his name for the next draw for the allotment of flat on hire purchase basis. As he failed to deposit the cost of the flat, the OP vide letter dated 15.06.07 cancelled the allotment and requested the Complainant to submit the required documents for the purpose of refund of registration money. On 21.08.07, the Complainant made a representation to the OP to reconsider his name in the next draw of allotment for the flat but after examination his request was not acceded to by the OP.
On 13.12.2012 during the course of proceedings OP filed an affidavit of Sh. A. K. Bisht Director (Housing) II inter-alia testifying that:
“2. In compliance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Forum dt. 03.07.2012, it is submitted that draw was conducted by DDA as per brochure of Ambedkar Awas Yojna – 1989 as well as subsequent resolution dt. 13.10.92 and resolution dt. 01.12.92 vide item no. 145/92 and item no. 168/92 respectively. As per para 11(i) of the brochure:-
“Flats will be allotted on cash down and Hire purchase basis, 40% allotments in MIG and 25% allotment in LIG will be made on cash down and remaining 60% in MIG and 75% in LIG would be in Hire Purchase Basis.”
“Registrants may indicate their choice in regard to the Mode of Payment in application form. However that does not confer on the registrant the right to get flat as per their choice of Mode of payment exercised by them.”
As per subsequent authority resolution dt. 13.10.92 vide item no. 145/92 the competent authority of DDA resolved that terms and conditions of allotment be modified as per para 9(a) of the resolution…..50% of allotment under LIG & 50% allotment under MIG to be on cash down basis keeping in mind the proposed changed pattern of allotment of 1986 and the judgment of the court.
Due to the above referred resolution, para 11(i) of the brochure was changed to the effect that the flats were allotted by DDA on cash down and Hire purchase basis. 50% allotments in MIG and 50% allotment in LIG will be made on cash down and remaining 50% in MIG and 50% in LIG would be on hire purchase basis. The above referred resolution/policy decision or guidelines formulated by the DDA have a binding effect on its transferees of land and their assignees.
By a subsequent resolution dt. 01.12.92 item no. 168/92, it was decided that the modification in the terms and conditions of allotment under NPRS-1070 approved by item no. 145/92, shall apply mutatis mutandis to allotments to be made hereinafter under the Ambedkar Awas Yojna 1989 and to all other allotments of Janta/LIG/MIG category flats unless specifically excluded by another decision.
3. That the complaint filed by the complainant is liable for rejection on the ground that in DDA Vs Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs) and another – (2003)7SCC301, the Supreme court held that the DDA is a creature of statute and, therefore, the policy decision or guidelines formulated by the DDA have a binding effect on its transferees of land and their assignees.”
The allotment was made to the complainant after the implementation of resolution.
The OP is a creature of statute and the decisions and the guidelines formulated by the DDA have a binding effect.
Secondly, while receiving the allotment-cum-demand letter from the OP thereby allotting a flat to him on cash down basis, the complainant just expressed his inability to pay the amount of Rs. 9 Lacs in lumpsum. He did not challenge the allotment of the flat on cash down basis by pleading that he had applied under BPL and SC category for allotment of the flat on Hire Purchase Basis. Instead of doing so, he requested the OP to consider his name in the next draw for the allotment of the flat on Hire Purchase Basis. He made this request at least twice. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that with the making of these requests to the OP the complainant lost his right for the allotment of the flat on Hire Purchase Basis against initial allotment of MIG flat No. 296, 3rd Floor, Pocket C, Block B, Loknayakpura. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, 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 11.03.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 90/09
11.3.2016
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
