DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM II

Udyog Sadan, C 22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi 110016.

Case No.430/10

Sh. K. K. Kurian

A 87, Nehru Gali,

Mandawali Extn. Delhi 110092                                 ….Complainant

Versus

The Delhi Development Authority

 through its Vice Chairman

Vikas Sadan, INA,

New Delhi 110023                                                   ….Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution  01.07.10                                                 Date of Order          22.03.17

Coram

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

                                        ORDER

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Complaint seems to be related to the allotment of Janta flat No.233A, Ghazipur, Delhi ( in short, ‘the flat’  in question) by the OP under SC/ST quota though this fact has neither been specifically pleaded by the complainant nor by the OP.

Admittedly, the flat in question was allotted under Hire Purchase Scheme to one Sh. Ashok Kumar in the year 1986 as per the allotment letter and the possession was handed over to him. He deposited Rs.5466.41p and the remaining amount was to be paid by him in installments which he started paying also. 

Now, According to the Complainant, thereafter Sh. Ashok Kr. sold the flat in question to one Smt. Sushma Goel on 28.03.1988 under GPA and she also sold it to one Sh. B. D. Rai on 12.04.1989 who further sold it to the complainant on 19.09.1990.

The dispute raised in the complaint is not with regard to the payments but with regard to the demand of Rs.1500/  raised by the OP in respect of the flat in question in the end of May, 2008 though according to the complainant he had already deposited the payment of installments, ground rent, service charge and penalty on late payment in installments and submitted the challans to the OP time to time but ‘No Dues Certificate’ was not issued to him. He filing a conversion application on 02.04.08. The complainant enquired the matter from the OP and he was shown a corrigendum letter dated 01.08.1988 demanding Rs.1500/  towards costs from the allottee but such letter was neither shown earlier nor a demand was raised during his 18 years of direct dealing with the account department of the OP since 1990 nor even at the time of charging penalty interest. According to the Complainant, the amount was worked out to Rs.12534/  with its exorbitant compound interest plus charges Rs.1000/  as per  letter of Lease Administration Branch (Housing) dated 19.06.08. According to the Complainant, he protested against such an undisclosed and unsolicited demand of cost and restoration charges (which demand was, however, never raised) during 18 years of his direct dealings with the account department and charging of the compound interest was also against the orders of the Supreme Court and the National Commission but on further enquiry it was revealed by the accounts branch that Rs.1500/  concession was given to SC/ST allottees in the initial payment but was demanded after two years of allotment, initial payment and possession  that the dealing assistant put up a note on advise of account branch to issue corrigendum letter to SC/ST allottees saying it was less demanded and charged it as costs.  Finding no other way the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 12534/  UNDER PROTEST on 18.08.08. Copy of the corrigendum letter dated 01.08.88 was never provided to him nor the OP showed that the withdrawal of concession given to SC/ST allottees had been withdrawn by any order issued from the Urban Development Ministry. His RTI applications were also not properly attended to.  Rather with regard to the said corrigendum letter dated 01.8.88 he was informed “being a very old case proof of delivery is not available in the record please”. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the present complaint has been filed on the grounds stipulated in para 15 of the complaint for issuing following directions to the OP to  

“(a)    declare the undisclosed and unsolicited secret demand of Hidden Cost by withdrawing the concession granted to SC/ST as illegal, unfair trade practice and against the constitutional rights of SC/ST category of allottees of DDA flats  

(b)      order to refund the amount of Rs.12,534/  deposited to DDA A/C. UNDER PROTEST on 18.8.08 with interest.

©       allow compensation for unnecessary delay for conversion, expenses, harassment and metal agony suffered continuously since 2008 due to unfair trade practices of DDA, as per provisions of the Act  

(d)     allow cost of this suit.”

In the written statement the OP has inter alia pleaded that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act as there is no hiring of services since the immovable property cannot be purchased by a mere Power of Attorney or Agreement to sell. It is inter alia stated that the demand of Rs.1500/  as balance initial deposit amount was already raised from the original allottee Sh. Ashok Kumar vide letter dated 01.08.88 and the interest was worked out as per office order No. F.21 (Misc)/09/INT/HAC 2001/49 dated 22.04.2002 issued by Commissioner (Housing) DDA and the interest amount on balance cost worked out was as per the order applicable in the DDA being a policy matter. It is stated that restoration charges were not recovered from the complainant as per the decision of the Competent Authority. It is stated as follows   

“10.   In reply to Para 10 of the complaint it is submitted that DDA  issued a corrigendum letter dated 1.8.88 to Shri Ashok Kumar/allottee and copy to A.A. (H) DDA, wherein it was mentioned that the initial cost of the flat is Rs.6966.41 instead of Rs.5466.41. Therefore, the allottee was requested to deposit Rs.1500/  towards balance cost within one month from the date of issue of letter, failing which the allotment was liable to be cancelled. The allegation of further enquiry done by the complainant is denied.  Complainant is not a consumer U/s 2(1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act as the pricing cannot be a subject matter of consumer dispute.”

13.    …. it is submitted that the demand of Rs.12534/  (balance initial cost of Rs.1500 + Intrest Rs.11034/ ) compounded deposited by the applicant without any protest as per order applicable in DDA as explained in above para 6 reply. Rest of the contents of para 13 of the complaint is denied. The conveyance deed of the flat in question has been executed by the DDA on 23.10.2008.

 15.   …. it is submitted that the National Commission for SC vide letter dated 18.12.2009 rightly observed that no caste based discrimination has been done by DDA in the case of the Complainant and, therefore,  closed the case of the complainant by National Commission for SC.”

It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed

Complainant has filed a rejoinder.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. S. K. Jain Director (H 1) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed.

Complainant has also filed additional documents on 30.07.15 stated to be received by him und the RTI Act from the OP.  Besides this, he has also filed photocopies of 5 documents on the same date.

We have heard oral arguments of the complainant and also of the Counsel for the OP and have also carefully gone through the record.

According to the Complainant, he had deposited the amount of Rs.12534/  under protest with the DDA. He has relied on the copy of the letter and copy of the challan as Anenxure 7 (A to B).  Letter copy of which is Annexure 7A has been written by Sh.  Ashok Kumar, 233A, DDA Janta Flats, Ghazipur, Delhi by putting the date under his signature as 18.08.08 and vide this letter he intimated the OP that he had deposited the said amount of Rs.12534/  UNDER PROTEST. The copy of the Challan Form Annexure 7B also goes a long way to prove that the said amount of Rs.12534/  had been deposited in the name of Sh.  Ashok Kumar and not in the name of the complainant. Therefore, till that date the complainant had not been recorded as an allottee/subsequent allottee in the record of the OP DDA and the flat in question continued to be in the name of original allottee Sh.  Ashok Kumar.  The copy of the letter Annexure 7A does not speak about the fact whether Sh. Ashok Kumar had received the corrigendum letter dated 01.08.1988 demanding Rs.1500/  towards cost from the OP or not.  Copies of the letters written by said Sh. Ashok Kumar to the OP on 26.06.08, 10.07.08, 11.07.08, 24.07.08 & 31.07.08 have also been filed on the record as Annexure 6A,  6B, 6C, 6D and 6E respectively wherein no  mention has been given to the receipt of the corrigendum letter dated 01.08.1988 by the allottee (Sh.  Ashok Kumar) from the OP.  However, in the letter dated 31.07.08 (copy Annexure 6E) the said Sh.  Ashok Kumar inter alia stated that “there is no basis to charge an imaginary or unsolicited secret amount from a Janta Flat allottee or its GPA Holder.” One thing is clear that till 18.08.08 it was Sh.  Ashok Kumar who continued to be the allottee of the flat in question in the record of the OP DDA and the complainant  had not entered into his shoes and was thus not  legally entitled to claim to be an allottee in respect of the flat in question or claim amount of Rs.12534/  from the OP. Therefore, the amount of Rs.12534/  must be deemed to have been deposited by Sh. Ashok Kumar and not by the complainant.  The complainant has filed the copy of a note written in the office of the OP under the RTI Act as Annexure 19A. The said note travelled from the table of D/Asstt. to the table of Director (H 1). The same is reproduced as hereunder   

“Reference note of DD/LAB (H) dt. 04.8.11 may kindly be seen,  in which he desired para wise reply of CIC order dated 06.07.2011. The para wise reply is as under   

Para 2,3 & 5.      As per HAC costing file No.21 (722)82/HAC no conversion of Rs.1500/  was given to SC/ST allotted for Ghazipur Janta Flats in 1986 (Copy of the approval of the Competent Authority FM/VC DDA is kept opposite along with the copies of costing convey offer). Further, from the perusal of the entire details, it is revealed that “SC/ST allottees can pay Rs.1500/  less as initial deposit. In their case, rate of monthly installments may be charged at a higher rate of rupees 18.80 p.m.”

It thus implies that no concession of Rs.1500/  was given, however, this was just a relief for payment of initial deposit of SC/ST allottees and the said relief was compensated by the Department by charging higher installment by Rs.18.80 p.m. This decision was conveyed by AO (H) vide No.F21(722)82/HAC dt. 01.7.1998.

As regard the name of the Competent Authority which approved the policy may be seen by the M/Wing.

In view of the above, further action may be taken by the M/Wing accordingly.

Sd/

29/8/11

D.Asstt.”  

The complainant has also filed the copies of the replies received by allottees of other Janta flats in the same locality under the RTI Act which, in our considered opinion, are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the present complaint. The complainant has filed these documents to show that the OP had   perhaps adopted pick and chose policy in the cases of different allottees. The said issue cannot be decided in the present proceedings which are to be held in summary manner. Therefore, in our considered Opinion, the complainant is not competent to file the present complaint as GPA of Sh. Ashok Kumar and hence he is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. 

Undeniably, the Conveyance Deed in respect of the flat in question has already been executed on 23.10.08. As held in Shiv Narain Gupta V/s M/s Delhi Development Authority CC No. 393/10 decided on 17.08.16 by the State Commission, Delhi, after taking possession of the flat the applicant does not remain a consumer. Therefore, in the present case, after execution of the Conveyance Deed of the flat in question in favour of the complainant on 23.10.08 he ceased to be a consumer.

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 22.03.17.