(Arising from the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by District Forum(North West) Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.1301/2004)





Delhi Development Authority … Appellant/OP

Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. through Ms. Girija Wadhwa

New Delhi advocate,







Versus


Smt. Santosh Jain ... Respondent/Complainant.
R/O 109, Pocket G-20 in person
Sector -7, Rohini,

Delhi



CORAM



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President

Sh. M.L. Sahni … Member



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



2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President(ORAL)





1. The short facts of the case are that the respondent complainant purchased a shop from its erstwhile owner and applied for its conversion from lease hold to free hold before the appellant OP Delhi Development Authority, contending that floor area of the shop is 8.61 sq. mtrs. The appellant OP in its demand notice said that the area of the shop for the free hold is 17.31 sq. mtrs., which for the respondent complainant must pay Rs.46,882/-.

2. The appellant OP while measuring the area 17.31 sq. mtrs. has included the Mezzanine Floor and Chhajja in the floor area of the shop.

3. The respondent complainant therefore went before District Forum with the grouse that the Mezzanine floor and Chhajja should not be included in measuring the area of the sop for charging the conversion fee for lease hold into free hold.

4. The District Forum after considering evidence of both the parties and the extract of scheme of conversion from lease hold to free hold, held that the scheme of conversion provides that the floor area should be taken into consideration for charging for the purpose of conversion, and that the demand letter sent by the appellant OP, claiming charge for an area of 17.31 sq. mtrs is unjustified and illegal, and the complainant was not payable for that. The District Forum also directed the appellant OP to pay the respondent complainant Rs.30,000/- as compensation.

5. That is what brings the appellant OP here in appeal.

6. We have heard Ms. Girija Wadhwa, counsel for the appellant and Sh. Santosh Jain, respondent in person.

7. An initial objection raised by the counsel for the appellant was that the matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the District Forum because the respondent complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Section 2(1)(d) read as follows:



(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment



(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person,.”



8. In view of the aforesaid definition, there is no reason why the dispute should not fall within the jurisdiction of the District Forum. A construed view of the definition should not be taken, unless there is some specific law which provides for redressal of the dispute in a particular Forum, the jurisdiction of the District Forum should not be ousted. We may note in this connection, the observation made by the Supreme Court in case of C.C.I. Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs Development Credit Bank Limited 2003 CTJ 849 Supreme Court: “ It cannot be denied that the Fora at the national level, State level and District level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principle of natural justice taking care of such grievance as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora, established under the Act. These Fora have been established and conferred with the jurisdiction in addition to the conventional courts. The principle object sought to be achieved, in establishing such fora, is to relieve the conventional court of their burden, which is ever increasing with the mounting arrears, and where the disposal is delayed because of the technicalities. Merely because recording of the evidence is required, or some question of fact and law arises, which should need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved.”

9. The plea, therefore, that the District Forum has no jurisdiction cannot be upheld.

10. Coming to the facts of the case, it is to be noticed that the measurement of a premises has to be taken on the basis of floor area, and the construction which exists between the floor and the roof are not to be taken into account, because they are usual and normal extension. The plea of the appellant that these constructions are also to be included in measuring the area for levying the conversion charges is therefore not tenable.

11. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the area of the shop as given in the sale agreement of the respondent on the basis whereof the complainant purchased the shop from previous owner the measurement has been given is 17.31 sq. mtrs., and therefore it should be held, that the measurement of the shop for conversion is 17.31 sq. mtrs, while the area become 17.31 sq. mtrs., only when the Mezzanine floor is taken into account. As mentioned earlier it is floor area which should be taken into account, and not the projection between the ground floor and the roof. It would be unfair and unrealistic to take into account any such projection in determining the area of the accommodation on the basis of which payment is to be made. The mere fact therefore that in the earlier sale deed the area of the premises is mentioned 17.31 sq. mtrs., should not provide justification for the appellant D.D.A. to charge for the entire area including the middle projection. The appellant DDA which is semi-government organisation is supposed to act justly and fairly and is not supposed to take undue advantage of dealings in prior transactions which are unjustified.

12. The District Forum was therefore justified in its view and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

13. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any deposited by the appellant be released in favour of the appellant subject to complete of formalities.

14. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

15. Announced on the 27th day of November 2009.

First Appeal No. 2008/544

(Arising from the order dated 23.04.2009 passed by District Forum(West) Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.365/05/804/04)





Ms. Sulekha Bajaj, … Appellant/Complainant

A-3/29D, Green Apartments, through Sh. Deepak Bajaj

Paschim Vihar, Authorised Representative

New Delhi

Versus

DDA, Chief Engineer ... Respondent/OP
West Zone Through through Ms. Girija Wadhwa,
Vice Chairman, advocate

DDA, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.

New Delhi

CORAM



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President

Sh. M.L. Sahni … Member



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

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President(ORAL)

1. The complainant is an allottee of OP DDA’s flat No.A-3/29D 6A, Green Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. He has challenged in the complaint the seepage of water in the roof top because of poor material used in construction of it and the improper maintenance of water tank of two adjacent flats bearing No.29-A of Sh. L.R. Rastogi and 29-C of Smt. Sharda. The complainant therefore wants that directions be issued to the respondent DDA to undertake the repairs for the damage caused in the roof top of the flat. The claim was opposed by the OP DDA by filing written reply before the District Forum, and th District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 23.04.2009.

2. That is what brings the complainant in appeal here.

3. We have heard Sh. Deepak Bajaj. Representative of the appellant and Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Counsel for the OP DDA.

4. The two adjacent flat owners Sh. R.L. Rastogi and Smt. Sharda from whose water tanks the seepage has been alleged, have not been impleaded, and this is one of the objection of the OP DDA. The OP DDA has further denied the allegation of use of sub-standard material in the flat and has alleged that the complaint has been filed after 18 years and the complainant has himself admitted that the damage was due to seepage from the overhead water tank of flat No.29-A and 29-C. The OP DDA has further said that, the terms and conditions on which the flat was given were that the transferee had taken the flat as it is, and he was not entitled to raise objections.

5. In the first place it has to be stated that the complainant has himself mentioned in his complaint that the seepage was due to improper maintenance of water tank by the two adjacent flat owners and as such DDA is not primarily responsible for the seepage. If the water tanks had not been properly maintained by the adjacent flat owners, then it is their fault and not of the OP DDA, and the OP DDA cannot be held responsible for the fault of other flat owners. Complainant has not impleaded other two flat owners from whose water tanks the seepage has been alleged, and it cannot in the circumstance be found out, as to what was cause of the seepage. We have also to take into account, that such problem has been brought forth after 18 years, and there is element of decay in building which is natural process.

6. However, we must clarify, that the argument of the OP DDA that the flat owner is not allowed to raise issue for any damage due to sub-standard material being used in the construction of the flat is untenable and unacceptable, because the purchaser purchased the flat in good faith, and believing that proper material has been used. If poor material has been used in the construction of the flat, and the flat collapses, it will not be open to the OP DDA to plead, that the purchaser should have satisfied himself about the quality of the material used in the construction of the flat. That is neither possible nor the purchaser is supposed to do that, and that will be wholly against the principle of honest and fair play, which the Commission cannot support.

7. With these observations the appeal is dismissed.

8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

9. Announced on the 13th day of November 2009.

Dear sir / madam
this mail is regarding ur shameless network of work process
me puneet batra has applied for shifting of my connection 011-25332829 on 22nd may 2010
vide request no s0002/tr002/0000004247 online through ur website customer support
my connection is shifted with no-25356899 but broadband not activated on it till now
what the bullshit is this system its 22 days and no work done by ur staff
me complaining on 1500, 1504 they say call sdo, de, area manager, exchange, but no use no one is willing to do work
all r siting and relaxing in offices me think that
on every call they reply call that no call that no its not our fault call other area, no ob generated ui call r previous exchange me tried all but still no use

so at last me writing this mail 2 u
if u r the person 2 do any thing on that matter do it else me wait for 1-2 days more and go to customer grivence cell
and then what ever go me dont know
as this is wrost ever thing with this mtnl reputation me sending u mail
plz do the favaour what ever u do
thanks
puneet batra
9212819819
old no-011-25332829
new no- 011-25356899

Dear sir,
One day, Irctc catering at railway platform charged more money than displayed charge against items written on the board. I said to him, why are you charging more, he replied if You want to purchase, then You will have to pay more. Please You suggest me that how I can give a lesson to him for this behaviour.

Regards,
naveen
Email- amolnaveen@yahoo.co.in

through the medium of this letter i want to request you that roads of whole tanga stand area in reghar pura karol bagh new delhi 5 area have a worstful condition &even during rainy season they become pits of water colletion the roads are becoming worst day by day i hope that the concerned authorities will take responsible action towards this problem and cure it at the earliest.

Dear
Sir/Mdm


Regarding last year your SC/ST Category shop allotment scheme in Delhi,
I have fill form no.0013631,0013632 dt.01.10.2010, submit in Axis Bank Brach Punjabi Bagh Delhi
Result is out this year 2011 and I am find out not allotted any shop my self and yet time I have not recd. my deposit amount 2000/-(Two Thousand Only.)Each, So request to you please return my deposit amount as per soon.

Form Details
1.Form no.0013631
Name: Kapil Kumar
Add: 114-B Lal Quarter Punjabi Bagh New Delhi-110026

2.Form no.0013632
Name: Vikas Kumar
Add: 114-B Lal Quarter Punjabi Bagh New Delhi-110026








Regds
Kapil Kumar
Mob.9213187708