Delhi

StateCommission

A/414/2016

RAVINDER NATH BAHL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

DEBASIS MISRA

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                              Date of Arguments: 28.11.16   

                                              Date of Decision:         05.12.16       

 

First Appeal No. 414/2016

In the matter of:

Ravinder Nath Behl

S/o Sh.Khem Chand Bahl

4/5 Gupta Market

Lajpat Nagar-IV

New Delhi-24                                                                         ......Appellant

 

 

                                                Vs.

 

Delhi Development Authority

Through its Vice Chairman

Vikas Sadan, INA Market

New Delhi                                                                     ......Respondent

 

 

                                                                                                  

^{O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)}

 

^{1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes}

 

2.  ^{To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes}

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            The complainant  has assailed order dated 02.06.15 passed by district  forum in complaint case No. 1389/03 dismissing the complaint.

2.            According to appellant he deposited Rs. 4500/- for registration of MIG flat in 1979 New Pattern Registration Scheme.  He was declared successful for allotment of flat No. GH-9/G-17/643 PV/NP on 30.10,87 and Rs. 17,549/- was demanded from him vide letter dated 16/20.11.87.  The appellant deposited the same on 16.02.88 and submitted the required document.  On 05.04.88 he found the flat to be in possession of someone else.  He brought the same to the notice of OP on which another flat was offered to him.   He protested and showed unwillingness to accept LIG flat in lieu of MIG flat.  Ultimately OP allotted MIG flat No. 639 IInd floor in GH-14/6-17/PV and demanded Rs. 31,116/- against total cost of original flat with Rs. 1,41,700/-.  OP did not deduct Rs. 17,547.32 deposited by complainant towards first allotment.  He wrote for adjustment but to no use.  OP demanded further amount of Rs. 5190/- for cancellation of alloment else threatened to cancel restoration and forfeit deposited amount. He filed a civil suit for which declaration and injunction restraining OP to demand Rs. 31,116.34 and fixing enhanced cost of Rs. 1,71,600/-.  The suit was dismissed in default on 27.9.94 and restoration application was also dismissed on 10.05.96.

3.          Complainant filed case before district consumer forum, Mehrauli which was registered as No. 1463/95 (96).  The same was dismissed in default on 16.08.01. The counsel did not inform him till 2.9.09.             

4.          The complainant filed petition before MRTP Commission which was withdrawn on 09.12.02 at argument stage with liberty to move appropriate forum for refund of the amount.  He sent notice dated 1705.03 seeking refund with interest.  He filed the present complaint for refund of principal amount of Rs. 1,93,256/- towards interest and Rs. 10,00,000/- towards damages.

5.          Respondent filed WS stating that complaint was time barred as flat was cancelled in 1990.   The complaint was barred by principle of resjudicata because civil suit and complaint before district consumer forum were already dismissed in default and complaint before MRTP Commission was withdrawn at the stage of argument.

6.          After going through the pleading of the parties and evidence led by both the parties by affidavit,  the district forum passed the impugned judgement. It was held that civil for similar relief was dismissed in default on 27.9.94, application for restoration was dismissed on 10.05.96. Thus the order attained finality. The complaint filed in district consumer forum, Mehrauli was dismissed in default on 16.08.01.  The complainant did not file application for restoration of the complaint or appeal before State Commission.  Then complainant filed petition in MRTP Commission which was withdrawn at the argument stage on 09.12.02 though with liberty to move appropriate forum for refund of the amount..              Consumer forum is not established for recovery.  The complainant has already exhausted the remedy by filing complaint under Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint was not maintainable and was time barred also.

7.            I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  The cause of action arose in 1990 when allotment was cancelled.  The complaint filed in 2003 is hopelessly barred by limitation.

8             Complainant has not spared any forum where he could go.  He knocked doors of civil court , doors of consumer forum, doors of MRTP Commission and started second round before the District consumer forum.  There would be no end if such petitions re entertained.

10.          I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order .  The appeal is dismissed in limini.

                Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

                One copy to be sent to district forum for information.

 

(O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)