DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.312/2014
Sh. Shreepat Rao Kamde (Senior Citizen
B-132, Mansarover Garden 66 years)
New Delhi-110015 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice-Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi-110023 …...Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 13.08.2014
Date of Order : 05.05.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that the complainant applied for conversion of his flat bearing No.L-259 Sarita Vihar, New Delhi alongwith all the documents from leasehold to freehold and paid conversion charges of Rs.16667 and processing fee Rs.200/- total Rs.16867/- in Corporation Bank, Bhikaji Cama Place, New as per the scheme. The freehold application No.6488 completed in all respects was deposited on 24.12.1999 with all the necessary documents. OP neither issued Conveyance Deed papers nor gave any response to him within 90 days despite his personal visits to Director and Deputy Director (LAB) of OP. There was no mention about the ground rent in the allotment letter dated 05.09.1990 which was to be paid after two years. Complainant wrote two letters dated 29.11.99 and 16.12.99 regarding exact amount to be deposited towards ground rent and interest on ground rent of the said flat. The complainant did not receive any reply to these letters till date. He deposited Rs.3,000/- towards ground rent and interest through challan No.189403 on 17.12.1999 in SBI, R. K. Puram, New Delhi It is submitted that he received letter No. 127 (201)87/SFS/SVII/426 dated 01.09.2000 regarding acceptance of his freehold conversion application and the OP also demanded recoverable dues Rs.8332/- out of which Rs.5670/- towards service charges, Rs.986/- towards retention money and Rs.1676/- towards ground rent but the OP did not give any relevant rules and which basis to arrive at each recoverable dues. He sent letters on 21.09.2000, 18.06.01 and 03.10.01 requesting them to give break up and details of the dues but no information was provided by the OP till date. It is submitted that he has taken the possession on 04.03.1991 and already paid Rs.420/- as service charges with cost of flat before taking possession and after taking possession he is continuously paying property tax Rs.5260/- per year to the MCD. It is the duty of the OP to hand over the locality to MCD after possession. He is not legally bound to pay property tax of Rs.5260/- to the MCD and services charges of Rs.420/- to the OP for the same period and for the same purpose in a year. OP has not mentioned the exact date on which the OP had handed over services of his locality to MCD. Complainant contacted on 03.09.12 to the Dy. Director (LABH) during public hearing and explained his problem regarding conversion application No.6488. On 29.10.12, he contacted Assistant Director (LABH) regarding freehold conversion. The Assistant Director suggested him to write a letter for issuing him conveyance deed papers. On 29.01.13 he registered a case in Samasya Nidan Sewa with OP. It was given in writing to attend on 11.02.13 at 11 hrs. to resolve freehold cases. He visited the OP office on 11.02.13. He had shown the registration slip to the staff but nobody wanted to entertain him on the basis of registration slip. Before leaving the OP office he submitted a letter to the OP vide diary No.4831 dated 11.02.13 to prove his presence and also requested to issue conveyance deed papers. The OP replied but it was not clear at what exactly OP wanted from him. On 17.02.14 he contacted the DD (LABH) during special camp for freehold organized by the OP. As per officer’s advise Complainant collected old conveyance deed papers from the Collector and submitted to the OP on 04.03.14 under receipt No.REC/H/14/5798 dated 04.03.14 as it was suggested to him to reissue fresh conveyance deed papers but no reply was received from the OP till date. As the OP’s acceptance order No.127 (201)/87/SFS/SV/II/1426 dated 01.09.2000 was not cancelled hence the OP had not issued fresh conveyance deed papers in lieu of old papers but the OP failed to issue conveyance deed papers till date. Neither they informed reasons nor given any reply. He also met Sh. Surinder Kr. Dy. Director (LABH) on 17.04.14 and explained his problem. He did not inform him the remaining conversion procedure or recorded proceedings of the public hearing. He was present on 29.04.14 in OP’s facilitation centre at Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. He was allotted token No.215. He contacted Dy. Director and the Asstt. Director of the OP and explained the case. Despite of long waiting on that day the conveyance deed was not issued. He wrote letters to the Director (LABH) on 29.05.14 and 30.05.14 requesting them to issue the conveyance deed but no reply was received till date. On 09.07.14 he attended the special camp for leasehold to freehold at Vikas Bhawan, INA regarding his flat No.L-259, Sarita Vihar. He was allotted token No.39 and advised to contact Sh. Surinder Kumar Dy. Director of OP and explained the case and reminded him about earlier special camp but the OP’s Dy. Director failed to issue conveyance paper despite of repeated visits. He sent a representation to the Vice-Chairman of OP on 17.02.14 but no reply was received from the OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complaint has been filed for the following reliefs:-
i. Direct the OP to convert DDA flat No.L-259, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi from leasehold to freehold,
ii. Direct the OP to set-aside the illegal demand of Rs.8332,
iii. Direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- towards physical and mental agony during last 14 years of pursuing matter and inordinate delay of freehold conversion,
iv. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the cost of filing this petition.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complaint is liable for rejection on the ground that it is time barred U/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant got himself registered under VIth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1985 for category-II vide application No.03762 dated 23.07.1985. He was allotted a specific flat No.L-259, Category-II, IInd floor, Sarita Vihar and demand against 5th and final installment was issued to him on 05.09.1990 with a request to deposit the demanded amount. There was condition for cancellation of the allotment if the payment is not made within 4 months. The demand included ground rent for the first two years @ Re 1/-. It was made clear in the demand letter that he shall be liable to pay rent for the land @ Re 1/- per annum for the first two years in advance and thereafter @ Re 2 1/2 % premium of the land in respect of the flat. This rate is subject to revision after 30 years. The amount will be payable in advance every year to the OP and no demand letter will be issued for this purpose. Interest @ 10% per annum or such other rate as may be decided by the OP from time to time shall be charged for the delay in payment of ground rent. After competing formalities the possession letter was issued on 13.11.90. He deposited ground rent vide challan No.189403 dated 17.12.99 for Rs.3000/-. The complainant applied for conversion of the aforesaid flat into freehold vide application No.06488 dated 24.12.99. The conversion application was accepted and he was issued four copies of unsigned conveyance deed form with a request to return 3 copies of conveyance deed duly stamped by the Collector of Stamp within 45 days. It was clarified in the letter dated 01.09.2000 that if the form of the conveyance deed are not returned within the stipulated period it will be presumed that he is not interested in conversion of leasehold to freehold of the above mentioned flat. The complainant did not turn up inspite of letters dated 29.06.01, 14.05.04 and 09.03.05 issued by the OP. The complainant filed an application dated 03.09.12 under RTI Act which was replied vide letter dated 11.09.2012. A show cause notice dated 16.01.13 was issued to the complainant requiring him to submit the demanded documents within 15 days “otherwise cancellation of conversion application”; instead of complying the direction contained in the previous letters, he wrote a letter dated 29.01.13 stating therein that he is not able to understand the exact requirement of the papers. He again submitted a letter dated 11.02.2013 stating therein that he did not receive conveyance deed papers. However, the complainant submitted conveyance deed papers (unstamped) on 04.03.14 which were issued to him on 01.09.2000. To verify the occupancy of aforesaid flat, Site Inspection Report was called which could not be completed on 23.04.14. On 23.03.14 the tenant was present there and during telephonic conversation the complainant stated that he had already submitted all the documents to the OP. To verify the occupancy of aforesaid flat, the site inspection was done on 16.07.14, 23.07.14, 06.08.14 and 12.08.14 but the flat in question could not be inspected on 16.07.14, 23.07.14, 06.08.14 and 12.08.14 as the flat was found locked on the dates of inspection. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP is a statutory body and acts in accordance with the statute/as per procedure of the law. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder. He has controverted all the averments made in the written statement. Instead of admitting any delay on his part he has put the entire blame on the OP. He has pleaded about the consumer’s basic rights to know about details of recoverable dues before making payment. It is stated as follows:-
“the dispute of recoverable dues of Rs.8332/- was not resolved by DDA. DDA had given full details of each recoverable dues after 14 years and after filing complaint petition. In the written statement DDA had reduced recoverable dues from Rs.8332/- to Rs.2856/-. It clearly shows that earlier disputed recoverable amount Rs.8332/- was wrong. Complainant is not responsible for delay. As a matter natural justice no allottee himself wants to delay his own case.”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Poonam Mathur Director (H-I) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have head the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Copy of the Scheme of Conversion from Leasehold System into freehold is Ex. OPW1/1. It is held in Gurshaney’s case (supra) that the OP DDA being a creature of statue policy decisions or guidelines formulated by it have a binding effect on its transferees of land and their assignees in the absence of rules to the contrary. The complainant has not brought any rules to the contrary in our notice. Therefore, the terms contained in the said Scheme are binding on the complainant. The question whether or not the demand raised by the OP to the extent of Rs.8332/- was legal or not or was not according to the terms and conditions of the conversion policy cannot be decided in a summary manner in the present proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Parties will have to lead specific documentary evidence in this regard which will ultimately require thorough examination of the documents and the legality thereof.
It transpires that the OP vide letter dated 01.09.2000 informed the complainant that before allowing of execution of conveyance deed the allottee was required to pay service charges and ground rent as per the terms and conditions of the demand letter against 5th and final installment issued on 05.09.90. Simultaneously, the complainant was asked to pay TDS in the form of retention money on the amount credited to his account. As per the terms and conditions, the complainant was required to pay ground rent @ 2.5% of the balanced premium which works out to Rs.420/- per annum after two years in advance failing which interest @ 10% (simple) was payable. In addition to the dues he was to pay to the OP the difference of enhanced conversion charges of Rs.61366/- for conversion. The complainant was advised by the OP to collect the stamp papers from the Collector of Stamps but neither the complainant returned the conveyance deed within the time nor sent any reply. The allottee submitted conveyance deed paper on 04.03.14 which was issued to him on 01.09.2000 by the OP. The OP submitted the inspection report as Ex. CW-1/35. As the OP had charged as per the terms and conditions of the above scheme, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
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 05.05.17.
