Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/352

DESH RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

SLUM AND JJ DEPTT. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision:21.04.2016

 

First Appeal No. 352/2010

 

(Arising out of the order dated 12.04.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 541/2008 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi)

In the matter of:

 

Sh. Desh Raj

S/o Sh. Gajraj

R/o F-2/646, Sunder Nagri

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

 

Versus

Dy. Director (Slum and JJR)

Delhi Development Authority

Room No. 9, Vikas Kuteer

Block-B, I.T.O. New Delhi

 

Also at:

 

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

(DRIA Section)
Room No. 8, Punarvas Bhawan

I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002

 

Also at:

 

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

(DRIA Section)
Dy. Director (Housing)/ P.I.O.

B-3, Vikas Kuteer

New Delhi-110002                                                ……...Respondents

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik        -        Member (Judicial)

 

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                           Yes

 

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Cases relied upon:

1. Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Shakti Coop. House Building Society Ltd, II (2009) CPJ 40 (SC).
2. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. MRTP Commission, III (2002) CPJ 18 (SC).
3. General Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & Anr. IV (2014) CPJ 1 (SC). = X (2014) SLT 495.
4. Britannia Industries Ltd. v. State of West Bengal IV (2015) CPJ 418 (NC).

Judgment

1.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 12.04.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint.
2.      Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant Sh. Deshraj applied to the Commissioner (Slum and JJR) Delhi Development Authority, presently known as Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Shelter Board’) for the allotment of a flat/plot under Residential Flats Registration Scheme 1985 (in short ‘Scheme 1985’). Complainant submitted application bearing No. 4249 and deposited an amount of Rs. 3000/- with the shelter board on 27.12.1985. Shelter board vide its letter dated 14.09.1987 refunded the amount of Rs. 3000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum which worked out to Rs. 3385/-. Vide letter dated 17.02.1988, shelter board asked the complainant to redeposit the amount of Rs. 3385/- for allotment of the flat/plot stating that he was still eligible to apply under the said scheme. Complainant accordingly re-deposited the amount of Rs. 3385/- through Central Bank of India on 20.02.1988. Grievance of the complainant is that the shelter board has so far not allotted him the flat/plot inspite of his repeated visits and legal notice dated 07.02.2008.
3.      Defence raised by the shelter board to the complaint is that the complaint is barred by time. It submitted that after re-deposit of the amount of Rs. 3385/-, priority number of the complainant remained the same which was 12929/G-Hire Purchase Basis. Contention of the shelter board is that it has been able to allot flats upto the priority number 2650/G. Complainant has to wait for his turn for allotment. Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the grounds that there was no time frame for allotment of the flat under the scheme 1985. Ld. District Forum observed that the shelter board had been doing allotment as per priority numbers and no person has been allotted flat after jumping the seniority list. Ld. District Forum held that there was ‘no deficiency of service’ on the part of the board.
4.      In the present appeal, the complainant reiterated the facts of the complaint and stated that he belonged to an economically weaker and backward section of the society. In its reply, shelter board also reiterated the averments made by it in its written version. It submitted that on the amount of Rs. 3000/- deposited by the complainant, interest @ 7% p.a. was allowed. Complainant was asked his option to redeposit the said amount which he deposited. His original priority number was restored.
5.      Plea raised by the shelter board is that it allotted flats upto the priority number 2650/G. The complainant’s name is still in the waiting list.
6.      I have heard the arguments addressed by the counsels for the parties. We have also heard the senior Officers appearing from the side of the shelter board.
7.      The only controversy before me is that as to whether the shelter board is ‘deficient in service’ in not allotting the flat to the complainant in a span of thirty years. Complainant admittedly deposited an amount of Rs. 3000/- on 27.12.1985. Perusal of the brochure of the scheme 1985 floated by the shelter board shows that it had promised to allot single storeyed houses which were fully ventilated and fitted with all the facilities. It was specifically mentioned that houses would be allotted without loss of much time (para 2 of the scheme 1985, Hindi version). Clearly, a period of thirty years has elapsed. In its written arguments, shelter board stated that it has so far allotted flats upto the priority number 2650/G. Priority number of the complainant is 12929/G. In a period of thirty years, shelter board has allotted flats only to 2650 persons. At this pace, the complainant shall have to wait for 150 years. Can it still be termed as, ‘no deficiency of service’?
8.      It is a matter of common knowledge that the amount of Rs. 3000/- had a great value in the year 1985. It used to be the pay of a Joint Secretary in Government of India. The complainant undoubtedly belongs to the lowest strata of the society. One can imagine the value of the amount of Rs. 3000/- for such a poor person in the year 1985. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that the shelter board promised to allot the house without loss of much time, as per scheme 1985. Priority number of the complainant is 12929/G. It has not come on record as to how many applicants in all are in the waiting list. Those who applied for the allotment of the house at the age of 60 years, have now reached the age of 90 years. Nobody knows as to how many applicants are alive as on date and how many died waiting for a roof on their heads. This is a case of gross negligence and insensitivity on the part of the OPs who were in a highly dominant position when compared to the applicants. Applicants hardly had the capacity to hire the services of the Advocates. They are not literate enough to approach the Consumer Fora and litigate on their own.  Statistics have revealed that only 0.3% of the aggrieved consumers come to the courts of law for redressal of their grievances. This Commission however stays its hands in making comments against the functioning of the shelter board or the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
9.      In view of the reasons given above, appeal is allowed. Orders dated 12.04.2010 passed by Ld. District Forum, Central (Kashmere Gate) Delhi are set aside. I, therefore, direct the shelter board to pay to the complainant as under:

 

1. to refund the amount of Rs. 3000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 27.12.1985 till the date of its realisation.
2. to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs) to the complainant for causing harassment, inconvenience, sadness, anguish and mental agony in a span of thirty years.
3. Shelter board is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakhs) in Consumer Welfare Fund of the State maintained by this Commission, for other applicants who have not been allotted flats so far in terms of the scheme 1985 and have not come to the Consumer Fora.
4. Shelter board is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) to the complainant.

 

10.  Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules. A copy of the orders be sent to the District Forum concerned.
11. File be consigned to Records.

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)