Delhi

East Delhi

CC/367/2017

BHUVESH PANDAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

DSIIDC - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 367/17

 

Shri Bhuvnesh Pandey

R/o 1/490, Vaishali

Ghaziabad, UP

Also at:

BP-103, Shalimar Bagh

Delhi – 110 052                                                         ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure

Development Corporation Limited

N-36, Bomby Life Building, Connaught Circus

New Delhi – 110 001

(Through its Managing Director)

 

2. Divisional Manager (Housing Division)

Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure

Development Corporation Limited

N-36, Bomby Life Building, Connaught Circus

New Delhi – 110 001

(Through its Managing Director)…Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 01.09.2017

Date of Order: 03.08.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Bhuvnesh Pandey against       Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (DSIIDC) (OP-1) and Divisional Manager of DSIIDC (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service.

            The facts in brief are that complainant Bhuvnesh Pandey who worked as Assistant (Hor) in DSIIDC got himself registered under the “2^nd Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme” Self Finance Cost Effective Workers Housing for group C & D category employees of industrial workers in any industrial complex of Delhi.  He, being the resident of BP-103, Shalimar Bagh, delhi-52 fulfilled all the terms and conditions as per the booklet.  He deposited an amount of Rs. 32,000/- with the application form which he submitted with DSIIDC on 12.03.2007.

            He deposited the first installment of Rs. 1,23,915/- on 02.03.2012, second installment of Rs. 1,23,915/- on 12.05.2012, third installment of   Rs. 82,610/- on 11.08.2012 and fourth and final installment of Rs. 50,611/- on 06.02.2013 making a total of Rs. 4,13,051/-. 

            He was allotted a flat bearing no. 419-A in the draw as informed by OP through their letter of dated 10.06.2014.  Through a letter of dated 24.06.2014, he was specifically informed that flat no. 419-A at Narela industrial complex, Delhi, had been allotted to him on the basis of draw held on 06.06.2014 at BCD, State Emporia Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.  He was asked to submit the documents, photographs and affidavit etc, which he submitted through letter of dated 25.07.2017.  He also paid an amount of Rs. 1,420/- on 28.06.2016 on account of interest.  However, he was shocked when he received a letter of dated 09.09.2016 informing him regarding the eligibility for allotment of flat, which he replied through his letter of dated 19.09.2016.  DSIIDC (OP) have unilaterally/arbitrarily rejected the allotment and refunded the principal amount of Rs. 4,13,051/- only without any interest. 

            He has stated that DSIIDC have illegally rejected the allotment of the complainant and have stated that they were liable to handover the possession of the flat which was allotted to him or pay interest @ 18% on the amount of Rs. 4,13,051/- since 2007 till 15.06.2017 which comes to   Rs. 4,04,240/-.  Hence he has prayed for directions to OP to handover the possession of the flat or to pay Rs. 4,04,240/- as interest; compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental tension and agony and Rs. 21,000/- towards cost of litigation.    

Heard on admission. 

            The first and foremost point which have arisen in the complaint has been as to whether the complainant was consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, when he has received the principal amount and have prayed for interest on the said amount.  In short, the point for consideration has been as to whether a complaint for interest can be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act when the complainant have received the principal amount; secondly, whether the complainant can claim interest under the scheme or not? 

            It has been argued on behalf of complainant that the complainant can maintain his complaint for claim of interest inspite of having his received the principal amount.  In support of his case, he has placed reliance on a judgement of Puneet Malhotra vs. Parsvanath Developers Pvt. Ltd., NCDRC complaint no. 232/2014 where refund of amount was allowed with interest.  Further, he has argued that he remains consumer even if he has received the principal amount. 

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, a look has to be made to the brochure for allotment of flat under the “2^nd Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme 2007”.  The relevant clause of said brochure is extracted hereunder:-

“Surrender or Cancellation

            In case, the allotment made to an applicant is sought to be surrendered/cancelled by him/her on any ground, the registration amount deposited by him/her shall stand forfeited.  However, MD, DSIIDC will have the discretion to condone the forfeiture in deserving case and his decision will be final and binding.

            Likewise, if the dwelling unit is cancelled by DSIIDC for non-payment of first or subsequent installments, the allottee shall be liable to pay the interest @ 12% for the delayed period in addition to the payment of aforesaid cancellation charges.  In case the period of default exceeds three months, the allotment of the dwelling unit will be liable, to be cancelled.  The DSIIDC shall not be liable to pay any interest on the deposits made by allottee in such cases.  There shall be an automatic cancellation after 6 months and DSIIDC shall not be liable to pay interest on the deposits by the allottee.”

            Thus, clause 18 of the brochure will answer the second question which is taken up first.  A bare reading of Clause 18 shows that in the first part, in case of surrender/cancellation of allotment by the applicant, the amount deposited stands forfeited.  In the second part, if the dwelling unit is cancelled by DSIIDC for non-payment of first or subsequent installments, the allottee has to pay the interest @ 12% for the delayed period.  Thirdly, if the default exceeds 3 months, the allotment is liable to cancel.  In such a case DSIIDC shall not be liable to pay any interest on the deposits made by allottee in such cases.

            In the first case, the deposited amount stands forfeited if the applicant surrender/cancel his allotment.  In the second situation, unit stands cancelled for non-payment of installments.  If the unit stands cancelled on the ground of non-payment of installment, DSIIDC shall not be liable to pay any interest on the deposits made by the allottee.  Thus, in both the situations, no interest is to be paid by DSIIDC on cancellation/surrender of allotment. 

            This clause does not stipulate as to whether the complainant have to be paid interest if the allotment is cancelled due to his non-eligibility.  Therefore, when the unit has been cancelled due to non eligibility of the applicant, certainly, the applicant have to be refunded the amount without any interest.  Thus, the complainant cannot be said to be entitled for the interest which he has claimed on the principal amount.  The judgement relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for complainant is of no help as the same is not attracted to the facts of the case. 

            Secondly, coming to the second point as to whether the complainant still remains a consumer when he has got the principal amount and have claimed interest on the said amount. 

            It is admitted case of the complainant that he has got the cheque encashed which was sent by DSIIDC (OP) through their letter of 15.06.2017.  Through this letter, they have sent cheque no. 635885 dated 14.06.17 drawn on State Bank of India, Udyog Sadan for an amount of     Rs. 4,13,051/- on account of refund of the money deposited under  “2^nd Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme 2007”.  In this letter, it has been stated that as per ‘Clause 4’ on eligibility condition in the brochure, the applicant must be a resident of NCT of Delhi (National Capital Territory of Delhi), however, after scrutiny of his application, it was noticed that he was not a resident of NCT of Delhi, but of NCR (National Capital Region).  Thus, his application for allotment of house was rejected. 

            From the perusal of letter of dated 18.06.2017, it is evident that DSIIDC have sent refund for an amount of Rs. 4,13,051/- in response to which complainant have sent a letter of dated 01.07.2017.  He has not mentioned anything in the letter of 01.07.2017 with regard to the cheque for an amount of Rs. 4,13,051/- sent by DSIIDC.  During the course of arguments, it has been stated on behalf of the complainant that he has got this cheque encashed.  When he has got this cheque encashed and has not mentioned anything in his letter of dated 01.07.2017 as to whether he has encashed this cheque without prejudice, he no more remains a consumer.

            In view of the above, we answer the first question in the negative that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  Secondly, he was not entitled to claim any interest under the scheme.  Thus, his complaint deserves its dismissal and stands dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President