ANOOP SINGH DALAL V/S DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Consumer Court Case

NCDRC

RP/3428/2009

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANOOP SINGH DALAL - Opp.Party(s)

MRS. GIRIJA WADHWA

10 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 09 Sep 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3428/2009
(Against the Order dated 06/02/2009 in Appeal No. 724/2007 of the State Commission Delhi)

1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYVikas Sadan. INA New Delhi						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. ANOOP SINGH DALALHouse No.697, Sector.-55, Faridabad Haryana						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER

For the Appellant :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 10 Mar 2010

ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Having considered the affidavit filed pursuant to our order dated 2.2.2010, we are satisfied that there was no delay in filing this revision. Respondent/ complainant applied to the petitioner/ opposite party-DDA for allotment of a flat under MIG Scheme, 1979. Draw was held on 27.9.2002 and the respondent was allotted MIG flat No. 181, Second floor, Peera Garhi and intimation thereof was sent by DDA through demand- cum- allotment letter dated 9.12.2002 16.12.2002 to respondent on his last available address given in the application at Village Tandaheri, P.O. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. However, the envelope containing the demand-cum-allotment letter was received back unserved with postal remarks found locked due to no-residing in village hence returned. Petitioner alleged that the allotment was also duly published for information to all the allottees vide Press Notification by the DDA in the leading newspapers on 26.2.2003. Since the respondent did not approach the petitioner-DDA to collect allotment letter etc., the allotment stood automatically cancelled after 15.5.2003 and the said flat was allotted to one Siddharth Bhardwaj through computerized draw held on 31.10.2003. Thereafter, complaint was filed seeking allotment of flat by respondent which was contested by the petitioner. Vide order dated 20.7.2007, complaint was disposed of with direction to DDA to refund application money of Rs. 4,500/- to the complainant with simple interest @ 7% p.a. from 26.1.1979. Dis-satisfied with Forums order, respondent filed appeal which was partly allowed by order dated 6.2.2009 by State Commission, Delhi enhancing rate of interest from 7% to 9% p.a. and also awarded Rs. 1.00 lakh as lumpsum compensation towards mental agony to the respondent holding DDA to be deficient in service. It is this order which is challenged under this revision. Vide order dated 5.10.2009, notice has been issued limited to grant of Rs. 1.00 lakh compensation to the respondent. We have heard the parties counsel. As may be seen from the order of the State Commission, the respondent had intimated about change of address for the first time on 15.12.2004 to the DDA. As may be seen further from the order passed by the State Commission, demand-cum-allotment letter was received back with postal remarks non-residing in village hence returned. Evidently, change in address was intimated after more than two years of the dispatch of demand-cum-allotment letter by DDA to the respondent. Thus, DDA could not have been held deficient in service as the said demand-cum- allotment letter was issued on the last known address of the respondent available with DDA. Part of the order awarding Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation, thus, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, revision is partly allowed and part of the order of State Commission awarding Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation is set aside. No order as to cost.

......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER