Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/386

DDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 26.04.2016

Date of Decision: 04.05.2016

Appeal No.386/11

 

(Arising out of the order dated 17.12.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 451/10 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-VII, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

Delhi Development Authority,

Through its Director (C.L.)

Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,

New Delhi.                                                                                 …..........Appellant

 

Versus

Sh. Narender Singh,

S/o Sh. Naval Singh,

R/o 65-B, Kishan Garh,

Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi.                                                                                ..….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The present appeal impugns order dated 18.06.2011 passed by District Forum-VII in Complaint Case No.451/10. The complainant who is respondent herein filed a complaint that he applied for a industrial plot measuring 117 Sq. Mtrs. in lieu of his automobile shop at Andheria Mor, Mehrauli, New Delhi for his livelihood.  He was allotted plot No. C-61, Block-C, Keshavpur, New Delhi vide letter dated 28.01.1998. After waiting for more than six months, he visited the office of OP numerous times but no satisfactory answer was given.  Later on he was told that his plot was cancelled due to non-payment, he requested the officer of appellant to restore plot as same has been cancelled without issuing demand notice or reminder.  His request was rejected on the ground that there is no power to restore the allotment.  He made a representation to the office of Hon’ble L.G. which was forwarded to the office of OP, OP rejected the request vide order dated 08.04.2009.

 

2. The appellant contested the case.  It filed WS stating that demand-cum-allotment letter was issued on 31.03.1998 to deposit Rs.8,19,050/- within 30 days, the complainant did not deposit the same, reminder was issued on 11.08.1998 requiring him to deposit the amount within 15 days alongwith interest @18% per annum failing which allotment would be cancelled without any further notice. Complainant failed to deposit the premium and his allotment stood cancelled. Representation was replied by DDA vide letter dated 08.09.2008 and 08.04.2009. The complaint had been filed much beyond the period of two years of limitation.  Complainant is not a consumer and there is no hiring of service.

 

3. After going through the material on record, the District Forum rejected the objection of the OP regarding booking being for commercial purpose on the ground that complainant has booked the same for his livelihood. The counsel for respondent produced the copy of complaint to show that said averments had been made in the complaint. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said findings.  The next question is regarding limitation.  The complainant wants to make out limitation from letter dated 08.09.2008 whereas according to appellant the limitation started from 11.08.1998 when his allotment was cancelled. This depends upon service of demand notice dated 31.03.1998 and reminder-cum-cancellation dated 11.08.1998. The complainant tried to make out that said letters were never served on him. District Forum found that OP has not placed any postal receipt showing despatch of said letters or any acknowledgement thereof.

 

4. Counsel for complainant submitted that firstly record of despatch is maintained for two years as has been accepted by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Satpal Kalra Vs. DDA 2007 (96) DRJ1 DB. In the instant case despatch was done in 1998 and complaint was filed in 2009. He further submitted that falsity of complainant’s version that he did not receive the alleged letters is demonstrated by conduct of complainant himself.  He drew my attention towards letter dated 26.05.2008 sent by Sh. Romesh Bhandari, former Governor of UP to Sh. Tejender Khanna, Lt. Governor of Delhi which is annexure-4 of the main appeal and is placed at page 27. The said letter recites that for some personal family problem complainant was not able to pay the land premium amount to DDA.  Complainant did not dispute the receipt of demand letter, rather he expressed his inability to pay the land premium due to personal family problem.  Not only this copy of his own letter to Sh. Tejender Khanna, Hon’ble L.G. of Delhi also shows the same fact.  Copy of the said letter is placed at page-28.

 

5. The counsel for appellant went on to draw my attention to letter dated 26.05.2008 supra from Sh. Romesh Bhandari to Sh. Tejender Khanna, Hon’ble L.G. of Delhi.  The said letter incorporates that copy of allotment letter was attached therewith. Copy of the said letter is attached at page, 28-30.  This is the same letter dated 31.03.1998 receipt of which is in question. If complainant did not receive the said letter, how he could attach the same with the representation.

 

6. Counsel for complainant wanted to get rid of aforesaid fact by submitting that complainant is an illiterate person, he could not convey his case properly and he simply preferred to take plea of inability to deposit the amount due to some personal family problem.  I am unable to digest the argument.  Illiteracy is not a licence to take any stand or to take a complete somersault.
    
7. Once it is held that letter dated 31.03.1998 was received by the complainant, the complaint become barred by limitation.  Complaint has to be filed within limitation from first cause of action as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2011) 9 SCC 126. Counsel for appellant rightly relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kerala Agro Machinery Vs. Vijoy Kumar Roy (2002) 3 SCC 165 to refute the plea of the complainant that any assurance was given to him to consider his case.  In the absence of any letter regarding assurance, there is no justification for negating the plea of the limitation.

 

8. Counsel for complainant relied upon the decision of this Commission in Appeal No.651/09 titled as DDA Vs. Ghan Shyam decided on 07.08.2012. The said decision has been relied by the District Forum to make out that appellant cannot discriminate amongst different allottees, when the allotment of plot No.84 in the same scheme was restored, there is no ground to deny similar relief to complainant. The said decision has been stayed by National Commission in revision petition no.3826/12. Thus, to my mind the same cannot be treated as a precedent.

 

9. Counsel for complainant submitted that after passing of the impugned order the appellant accepted the amount of Rs.21 lacs including interest @12% per annum on the outstanding amount in terms of order of District Forum.  Thus, now the appellant is estopped from challenging legality of the order by way of present appeal.  Counsel for appellant submitted that anyone can visit the counter of appellant, prepare a challan and deposit the amount.  Respondent cannot take advantage of his unilateral act in depositing the amount.  Things could have been understood, had the appellant issued the challan or any letter asking complainant to deposit the amount. The argument appears to be plausible. In this regard, reference can be made to para 20 of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP (2008) 8 SCC 265.

 

10. Anyhow, I feel that appellant should have returned the amount immediately when it came to know that same has been deposited wrongfully by complainant. It did not do so.  Now it must return the amount alongwith interest from the date of deposit till date of refund. In order to do complete justice to both the parties, I deem it proper to direct the appellant to refund the sum Rs.21 lacs alogwith interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. July, 2011 till date of refund, within one month.

 

11. With the above observations, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.

 

12. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and be also sent to District Forum for information.

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                                                                                              

 

245.