DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 181/2008
Sh. Naresh Kumar Gosain
S/o Late Shri I.P. Gosain
36/A, Rashid Market
Delhi – 110051 ….Complainant
Versus
1. The Chairman
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi
2. The Director (Housing)
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi ...Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 26.03.2008 Date of Order : 19.08.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Complainant, about eighty four years old lady (who has now died and is being represented through her LR), filed the present complaint pleading therein that she had been registered for one LIG flat under Hire Purchase Scheme New Pattern 1979 by the OPs on payment of Rs. 1500/- as necessary charges and issued certificate of registration dated 24.6.80 but she was never allotted any flat; that she came to know that flat bearing No. 204, 1st Floor, Block-E, Pocket-3, Sector-18, Rohini, New Delhi had been allotted to her but no communication in this regard was sent to her at her given address and thus deprived of the allotment of a LIG flat. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, she filed a complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to restore the allotment of the above stated flat and to pay Rs. 5 lacs towards damages, mental agony and harassment and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation expenses to her.
OPs, in their written statement, inter-alia have pleaded that the demand-cum-allotment letter had, infact, been sent to the complainant at wrong address and when this fact came to the notice of the OPs, a revised demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the complainant and she was allowed to deposit the cost of the flat as per the revised schedule which she had to deposit in 144 monthly instalments of Rs. 4860/- commencing from 10.8.2008. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OPs.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Neelam Chadha, Director (H-II has been filed on behalf of OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.
It is an admitted fact of the parties that during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant has been given possession of the flat No. 204/FF/LIG, Pkt. E-3, Sec. 18, Rohini vide letter No. 4353(366)/06/NP/RO/3384 dated 16.11.2010 (copy Ex. OPW1/9).
The only submission on behalf of the complainant is that the complainant may be awarded compensation for delayed delivery of the flat. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the OPs that possession of the above stated flat has been accepted by the complainant without any protest and, hence, the complainant is no more entitled to any compensation.
The possession of the above stated flat has been given to the complainant during the pendency of the complaint in 2011. After taking possession of the said flat the complainant died and now her LR is contesting the complaint. In our considered opinion, after the death of the original complainant, her LR is not entitled to any compensation. We hold accordingly.
In view of the above discussion, we dispose off the complaint accordingly.
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 19.08.16.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 181/2008
19.8.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, we have held that after the death of the original complainant, her LR is not entitled to any compensation. We dispose off the complaint accordingly. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
