Delhi

East Delhi

CC/578/2016

NIRMAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DDA - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.578/2016

 

1.	Nirmal W/o Sh. Ashok C. Prakash (Advocate) R/o B-2/108, Milan Vihar Apptts. I.P. Extn, Patparganj, Opp. Balco Market, Delhi – 110092.	….Complainant
Versus
1.         2.           3.         4.	The Executive Engineer DDA Office Complex Seed Bed Par, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110092.   The Secretary, Milan Vihar Co-Op. Group Housing Society Plot No.72, Patparganj, I.P. Extn. Delhi – 110092   Shri Rakesh Kr. Jain S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Jain A-103. Paradise Appartments, Patparganj, I.P. Ext. Delhi – 110092.   Sh. G.C. Gupta & Gaurav Gupta M/s N.S. Realator & Developers Shop No.11, Balco Market, Patpargunj, I.P. Ext. Delhi – 110092.	……OP-1         ……OP-2         ……Deleted vide order dated 31.07.2017         ……OP-3

Date of Institution: 04.11.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 28.03.2023

Judgment Passed on: 10.04.2023

               

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

        The present complaint is filed by the complainant against OPs, for charging an extra amount from him for conversion from leasehold to freehold, its failure to do the same within a statutory period of 45 days, misusing its official position alleging conspiracy, cheating under Sec.  420 and 120-B IPC and also an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

OP1 is DDA, OP2 is the society in charge of the complainant, and OP3 is the property dealer as per the amended memo of the parties filed in pursuance of the order dated 31.07.2017.

1. It is the case of the complainant that she has applied for the conversion of her flat from leasehold to freehold, with OP1 and the OP1 has taken longer time than the statutory period of 45 days, which has been later extended to the period of 60 days by the government, but despite that OP1 failed to process the same even after receiving the fee charges, required for conversion, processing fee and all other documents. This is also the allegation of the complainant that she has been asked by OP1 to submit the documents repeatedly in piecemeal, because of which she has been in trouble for submitting the documents multiple times and she has also been forced to deposit the fee more than once for the same.
2. It is further state that the complainant has purchased the flat in question through a property dealer, to whom she has paid 88,000/- as commission and the flat was sold to her based-on GPA and agreement to sell.
3. The complainant submits that the conversion from leasehold to freehold was suspended with effect from 11.10.2011 and despite that OP1 has accepted her application for conversion from leasehold to freehold during the suspension period on 06.12.2013 & even was forced to deposit conversion charge and by doing so OP1, has misused its official position and is liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by illegally demanding and accepting Rs.10,000/- from the complainant in the years 2013 and 2014, though, the said amount has already been deposited by the complainant in 2004 itself.  The complainant further submits that she has further paid an amount of Rs.14,450/- towords Stamp fee etc. Moreover, despite the submission of the documents, the OP1 once again (the third time) demanded all these documents including the payment of above stated Rs. 10,000/- which the complainant was forced to pay on persuasion by OP1. The complainant also submits that OP1 had also told to deposit Rs. 2124/- as ground rent four times which was deposited by the complainant on 24.11.2015. The complainant submits that OP1 has been charging the ground rent from two sources one from the applicant and the other from OP2. Moreover, the complainant has been regularly paying the ground rent to society. Therefore, there was no authority with OP1 to ask for the same from the complainant. This is further the allegation of the complainant that OP2 has also raised similar illegal demands of Rs. 28,600/- in 2004 for providing some service as additional essential jobs which have been made by the complainant under protest though it was not her responsibility to pay the same. The complainant states that she was compelled to pay to OP2 Rs.500/- at least 4 times (Rs. 2000 in total) for getting her signatures, ‘verified’ and issuing NOC without any authority of law. The complainant has also paid OP2 an amount of Rs. 5000/- towards Ground rent. The complainant submits that on demand for a refund of the excess amount paid by her, the same was declined by OPs. The complainant in her complaint has alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating and the offence committed under section 420 read with section 120 B of IPC, guilty for breach of promise, offence of misuse of the official position under the Prevention of corruption act, 1988 against OP1.
4. The complainant submits that she has paid OP1, OP2 and OP3 the amount for which they were not authorized to receive from the complainant and claims from OP1 a refund of Rs. 52,400/- (including 200/- processing fee) deposited for conversion from leasehold to freehold, Rs. 30,000/- (10,000x3) paid towards penalty, Rs. 2125/- paid on demand from OP1, and claim from OP2 an amount of Rs. 2000/- charged for signatures verification and issuance of NOC, Rs. 28,600/- charged for services provided, and Rs. 7124/- (5000/- +2124) from OP 1 and OP2 jointly paid towards the ground rent and also a refund of Rs. 88,000/- from OP3 who had received the said amount as a commission from the complainant and Rs.14,450/-, which he has paid as stamp duty in compliance with the order dated 4.06.2015 passed by the SDM for which he was not having the legal duty along with exemplary compensation for her sufferings for mental and physical harassment and agony and litigation cost.
5. OP1 and OP3 have filed their reply. OP2 did not choose to appear and was proceeded ex-parte on 26.02.2019.
6. OP1 denied the allegation of the complainant and submits that the flat in question under mutual exchange was sold on GPA and sale agreement and there was a subsequent change of hands by GPA and agreement to sell. On the last GPA and agreement to sell, the complainant had applied for conversion on 12.06.2013, deposited conversion charges of Rs.52,400/- including a processing fee of Rs.200/. Since there was a deficiency in documents submitted by the complainant, therefore vide letter dated 27.12.2013, the complainant was called to make good the deficiency. OP1 submits that the agreement to sell, dated 13.10.2003 should be registered as per standing orders of the government. Hence, conversion was denied by the competent authority vide order dated 07.02.2014 and the same was conveyed to the applicant. When the complainant submitted the registered GPA on 27.03.2014, then the conversion was allowed after completing the formalities. The conveyance deed was duly stamped on 12.10.2015 and was executed on 11.12.2015 in favour of the complainant. OP1 submits that there is no cause of action existing against OP1 as alleged by the complainant and it is praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. OP3 is the Property Dealer who has filed his reply stating that he has not received any amount as a commission from the complainant as the said flat was purchased by the complainant  directly from the owner and he has only shown the flat to the complainant. Further, he has signed the document as a witness and is not liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant against him. The OP3 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. The complainant has filed her rejoinder qua OP1 & OP3 reiterating the contents of her complaint. All parties have also filed their respective evidence and written arguments.
9. This Commission has gone through the documents filed by the complainant, OP1 and OP3. After perusal of the document, on merit, the issue arose concerning the deficiency of services on the part of OP1 and OP3. Since OP2 has not filed any reply and was  proceeded ex-parte, therefore, this commission had no opportunity to hear its version. Upon perusal of the complaint, evidence of the complainant, rejoinder, and the written argument this is observed that the complainant has alleged conspiracy and offence of cheating under sections 420 and 120 B of IPC and the allegation concerning the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against OP1. The question of deficiency cannot be decided without appreciating the facts of the case which as per the complaint includes the offence of conspiracy and cheating under sections 420 and 120 B of the IPC and misuse of the official position under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the OPs. Hon'ble NCDRC in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd versus United India Insurance Co Ltd, (1998) 1CPJ 13 (NC), vide para 5, has held that “ keeping in view the procedure followed in this commission, we are of the view that the question of fraud, cheating, conspiracy cannot satisfactorily be resolved here and the proper forum for dealing with such questions would be a competent civil court”.
10. In view of the above, this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the complicated questions of law or facts like cheating/conspiracy in the summary trial under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. Therefore, the present complaint is being returned to the complainant to be presented before the court of competent jurisdiction.
11. The complaint is disposed of as returned.
12. The complaint could not be disposed within the stipulated time due to the heavy pendency of the cases.
13. A copy of the order is given to the parties as per rules applicable under CPA and thereafter the same may be uploaded on the website.

Pronounced on 10.04.2023.