Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/386/2018

Bhupinder Nagpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia, Adv.

20 May 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	386 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	15.10.2018
Date of Decision	:	20.05.2021

 

Mr.Bhupinder Nagpal S/o Sh. Ram Chand Nagpal, #3233, Ground Floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

 

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Delhi Development Authority, Housing Department, ‘D’ Block, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi – 110023, through its Director.
2. Deputy Director (H), Delhi Development Authority, Housing Department, ‘D’ Block, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi – 110023  

                                                             .... Opposite Parties

BEFORE:         JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                        MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

Complainant in person.

Sh. Anish Gautam, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied for allotment of the flat by filing application No.7508355 in DDA Housing Scheme 2014 through online from his Chandigarh office/residence and he was successful in draw of lots and was allotted flat bearing No.103, Floor 10, Sector A-9, Pocket 1, Block B, Locality Narela, Flat Category MIG. The complainant was also provided a login ID and password for online management of his allotment (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, the complainant provided all the required documents including Agreement to Sell and affidavits, whereafter, a demand draft dated 03.04.2015 was uploaded online, vide which, he was required to deposit an amount of Rs.59,94,941/- by 02.07.2015, which was deposited by him through online mode on 01.07.2015 and the same was duly acknowledged by DDA through email.  Therefore, the complainant was entitled to possession letter, sale agreement and conveyance deed of the said flat to establish the ownership but despite number of efforts, he did not receive the said documents. It was further stated that the complainant learnt that the block of allotted flats was not effectively livable or in inhabitable condition because there is no access to main road ; irregular water supply ; flats lack good infrastructure ; absence of basic amenities ; absence of market nearby ; sewerage & seepage problems etc. As such, legal notice (Annexure C-7) sent to the Opposite Parties but despite receipt of the legal notice, they failed to hand over possession of the unit and also not issued any possession letter or executed the conveyance deed. It was further stated that when the complainant once logged onto his page on the portal on 02.09.2018 from his Chandigarh Office, he was shocked to see that the Opposite Parties changed the contents of demand letter, which now showed a higher amount due (Annexure C-8) and the earlier demand letter is Annexure C-4. It was further stated that despite receipt of the huge amount of Rs.60,94,941/-, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

2.             The Opposite Parties, in their written version, have taken a specific objection that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the dispute under Delhi Development Authority, in short DDA Housing Scheme 2014, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts only. It was admitted regarding booking of the flat. It was further stated that as per terms and conditions of the scheme, it was requested to submit the required documents by post to reach DDA positively by 31.01.2015 and even the DDA had opened special counters for submission of documents in auction hall, DDA Vikas Sadan, D Block, New Delhi, which were operational from 01.01.2015 to 31.01.2015 on all working days including Saturday. It was further stated that in the DAL, it was clearly mentioned that required documents for taking possession can be downloaded from DDA website and submitted after making payment (Annexure R-2) and the allottees shall be entitled to take delivery of possession only after he/she completed all the formalities, paid all dues and furnished/executed all the documents as required in the Demand cum Allotment letter but the complainant failed to contact DDA alongwith required documents for possession. It was further stated that the allotted flat is habitable and the physical possession is handed over to the allottee alongwith all fittings and fixtures. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

3.             The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

6.            The first question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not. In the instant case, it is evident from the record that since in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for allotment of unit through online and payment has been made by him to the Opposite Parties with regard to the unit, in question, through online from Chandigarh, as such, this Commission had held that the place where the booking has been done or place where the payment has been made through online, that place will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Our view is supported by the judgment titled as Spicejet Ltd. Vs. Ranju Aery, Revision Petition No.1396 of 2016, decided by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 07.02.2017, which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The relevant para of the said judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reads thus :-

“14.    In so far as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the State Commission have aptly brought out in the impugned order that part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh, because with booking of the travel tickets on the internet, the acceptance of the contract was received by the complainant through internet at his place of business/residence.  We have no reasons to differ with the view taken by the State Commission that the State Commission at Chandigarh had the territorial jurisdiction to handle the complaint.”

 

In view of the afore-extracted judgment and the documents, referred to above, a part of cause of action arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

7.             The next question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the complainant sent the documents, as required, to the Opposite Parties or not. It is the admitted fact that the complainant applied in DDA Scheme 2014 with the Opposite Parties, and draw of lots was held in the year 2014 in which the complainant was successful. Therefore, the complainant applied for flat through online alongwith Rs.1 lakh from Chandigarh on 07.10.2014. The Opposite Parties submitted that as per scheme of DDA, required documents for taking possession can be downloaded from DDA website and submitted after making payment. The Opposite Parties further stated that as per column 6 of scheme brochure, number of documents were required, as mentioned in para No.4 of the written statement  but in the present case, the complainant failed to contact DDA alongwith required documents. Perusal of zimini order dated 11.12.2019 shows that at the time of arguments, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that all the documents were sent to the Opposite Parties through speed post vide receipt dated 21.01.2015. Therefore, Sh.J.S.Negi, Deputy Director, SFS (Housing), Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi – 110023 was directed to specifically admit or deny by way of affidavit as to whether the documents vide postal receipt No.EP338577635IN dated 21.01.2015 have been received by the Opposite Parties through speed post or not. In compliance to the said order, affidavit of Sh.Cornelius Tete, Deputy Director (SFS) Housing, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-23 was filed, in which, in para No.3 of the said affidavit, it has been specifically mentioned that as per records available in SFS Branch, Housing of Delhi Development Authority, no documents relating to allotment of Flat No.103, 10^th Floor, Pocket-01, Block B, Sector A-9, Narela, Delhi was received from the complainant vide postal receipt bearing No.EP338577635IN dated 21.01.2015. On the other hand, the complainant submitted that Mr.Cornelius Tete has no concern with department in which capacity he filed affidavit before this Commission. The complainant further alleged that all the documents are already on file and they intentionally filed affidavit of Deputy Director, SFS and the matter is concerned with Deputy Director MIG because para No.1 of the arguments and reply of  Deputy Director SFS, in which, himself said that the matter is concerned with MIG not SFS. Even perusal of the file shows that on 23.01.2015 on behalf of DDA one Sh.Arun Employee Code No.0134 on 23.01.2015 received all the documents and signed the same, as is evident from stamp affixed (alongwith written arguments of the complainant). If the Opposite Parties did not receive the said documents then from where they got PAN numbers and other details of the complainant, which is mentioned in allotment cum demand letter. Even the Opposite Parties issued two demand letters to the complainant of different amount. So, it is clearly proved from the record that all the documents received by Sh.Arun Employee Code No.0134 on 23.01.2015.

8.             The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to refund of the deposited amount. It is not disputed fact that the complainant deposited the total amount of Rs.60,94,941/- with the Opposite Parties in respect of the unit, in question. The complainant came to know that the said block of allotted flats is not effectively livable and are not in a habitable condition because there was no access to main roads, the work on building roads have yet to start at many places, water supply is irregular and few colonies are dependent on water booster and summerisble. Water tankers are must during peak summers and charge exorbitantly and there are lots of seepage/leakage inside the flat and doors and walls are mis-aligned. So, despite receipt of the huge amount, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant complete in all respects. So, the complainant is thus, entitled to get refund of deposited amount. In view of above facts of the case, the Opposite Parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to him.

9.             It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the  complainant. It is clearly proved that an amount of Rs.60,94,941/-, was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the Opposite Parties, for their own benefit. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is held entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him alongwith simple interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits till realization. 

10.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

11.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally are directed, as under:-

1. To refund the amount Rs.60,94,941/-, to  the  complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a.,  from the date of deposit onwards.
2. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant.
4. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) thereafter shall carry penal interest @14% p.a., instead of 12% p.a. from the date of default, and interest @12% p.a, on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

12.           However, it is made clear that, if the complainant availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by him (complainant).

13.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

May 20^th, 2021.                                      Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

[PRESIDENT]

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

rb