Delhi

East Delhi

CC/124/2016

MAHAVIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

DSIIDC - Opp.Party(s)

27 Mar 2019

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. 124/16

 

Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain

S/o Late Shri Attar Chand Jain

R/o AG-350, 2^nd Floor

Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110 088                         ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure

Development Corporation Limited

FEI Block, Plot No., 419, Patparganj Industrial Area

Delhi                                                                               …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 14.03.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 27.03.2019

Judgement Passed on: 02.04.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain against Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC) Limited (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant submitted an application dated 29.03.2007 for opting Type-I flat with Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (OP), offered for Rs. 2,65,000/- under 2nd Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme and deposited an amount of Rs. 27,000/- for which OP issued the acknowledgement dated 29.03.2007.    

          It was stated that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 12.10.2007 that he successfully cleared the allocation of type-I flat at Bawana Industrial Complex under the Self-Finance Cost Effective Workers Housing scheme ’Ready Flats’ and demand of     Rs. 2,38,000/- was raised by OP which was to be deposited before 12.11.2007.  It was also mentioned in the letter that the possession will be handed over on receipt of all payments.  The complainant deposited Rs. 2,38,000/- on 07.11.2007 for which receipt was issued. 

          It was further stated that the complainant was shocked on receiving a letter dated 06.10.2015, after a period of 8 years, wherein the allotment of the flat to the complainant was cancelled on the basis that he was ineligible and amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- was returned without any interest.

          It was also stated that as per column 14 of brochure, “Registration deposit of unsuccessful applicants shall be refunded within 3 months from the date of publication of list of successful applicants for allotment.  In case the registration deposit is refunded after 3 months from date of publication of list of successful applicants for allotment, a simple interest @ 5% p.a. for such delayed period i.e.; period beyond 90 days from the date of publication of lists of selected candidates shall be payable”.  However, after 8 years, the complainant was wrongfully declared as unsuccessful and the amount was refunded without any interest. 

          It was stated that no letter or correspondence was issued by OP regarding the conduction of verification or cancellation of the allotment of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to allot the flat to the complainant; to remit interest @ 9% on the refund amount which was Rs. 1,66,950/- till date from the date of allotment of flat i.e. 29.03.2007; to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards legal expenses.  

3. In the reply filed on behalf of DSIIDC (OP), they have stated that the information regarding the non eligibility for the allotment of type-1 ready (cash down) flats at Bawana had been given to the complainant. 

It was stated that applicants who were provisionally successful as per decision of the competent authority, a field verification was conducted for the ground reality, whether they were working in factories or PSUs.Those who were successful as per the report of the field verification committee, a draw was held on 06.06.2014 and those who were found ineligible, the deposited amount was refunded to them without interest.The interest was given only to those applicants who were not found successful in any draw.

It was also stated that the applicant was declared provisionally successful on the basis of the submitted documents, but he did not find successful after further field verification, therefore, he was not eligible to get any interest.

It was further stated that the report of verification committee was submitted on 17.01.2012.The list of ineligible applicants was displayed on the notice board of OP’s and also on website giving them time for inviting objections.Hence, there was no deficiency on their part.They have denied other facts also.

4.  

 5.      In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of acknowledgement dated 29.03.2007 (Ex.CW1/1), copy of letter dated 12.10.2007 (Ex.CW1/2), copy of deposit slip dated 07.11.2007 (Ex.CW1/3) and copy of letter dated 06.10.2015 (Ex.CW1/4).

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Pyare Lal, Divisional Manager (Housing) who have also deposed on oath.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of information regarding non eligibility of flats at Bawana to the complainant (Ex.RW1/1), copy of field verification report (Ex. DW-1/C/61) and documents in respect of refund the deposited amount by cheque which was encashed by the complainant (Ex. DW-1/66).

5.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that he was entitled for interest which was not paid by Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (OP). 

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (OP) argued that the complainant was not entitled for refund of amount with interest as he was ineligible for allotment.  He was not an industrial worker. 

The only point for determination was as to whether the complainant was entitled for refund of amount with interest or not?

          To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the eligibility clause as per the brochure of 2^nd Rajiv Gandhi Self-Finance Cost Effective Workers Scheme of Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (OP).  Relevant condition of Clause 4 is extracted hereunder:

“Applicant should be an industrial worker in any industrial complex of Delhi”. 

          From the evidence on record which has been filed on behalf of Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (OP), it has been stated in the testimony of Shri Pyare Lal, Divisional manager (Housing) that the complainant was not eligible for allotment.  He has filed Field Verification Report alongwith the intimation given to the complainant as Ex.RW1/1.  If the said report is perused, it is noticed that applicant previously working in the factory, now he start his own factory.

          The complainant was informed through letter of dated 15.12.2014 on the basis of this report.  He was given an opportunity to make an appeal against the said report to the Appellate Committee by 04.01.2015.  The record did not show that he has made any appeal to the Appellate Committee.  By not doing so, the report in respect of his eligibility became final.  Thus, the fact remains that complainant was not eligible for allotment of flat under the said scheme.  When he was not eligible for allotment of flat under the said scheme, he cannot claim interest on the amount paid by him.  Even otherwise also, when the complainant have got the refund and have enchased the cheque through which an amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- was refunded, he no more remains a consumer.

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (OP).  Hence, the complaint of the complainant deserves its dismissal and the same is 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)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

      Member                                                                                President