DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.738/2008
Shri Jitinder Nath
B-5/7, Rana Pratap Bagh
Delhi-110007 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi-110023 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 09.08.10 Date of Order : 22.07.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Sh. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
As per the averments made in the amended complaint, the complainant applied for allotment of a flat under the “Self Financing Scheme on 14.08.1982 with the OP after depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.1033 of book No.11 and thereafter deposited the installment of Rs.11,300/- through challan No.029936. The OP allotted a flat No.0149, GF, Pachimpuri Pocket to the complainant in the year 1993 which was not in habitable condition. The complainant vide letter dated 28.05.1993 requested the OP to cancel the allotment due to his personal difficulty and he also requested the OP for allotment of another flat in the next draw. However, on 11.11.1994 the complainant received a show cause notice bearing No.146(1)/93/PA/SFS/11 from the OP. Consequently, the complainant sent a letter on 30.12.1994 to the OP showing his inability to accept the flat and requested the OP to defer the allotment and to allot another flat in the next draw in the same scheme but to no result. Complainant’s requests were not heeded to by the OP. Complainant sent a legal notice on 22.09.2008 to the OP but the OP did not give any reply. The complainant time and again visited the office of the OP and met several officials who assured him that a flat will be allotted to him but however OP did not pay any heed despite long passage of time. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to allot the flat under the same term and condition on which the complainant had applied to the OP and/or grant top priority to the complainant over the subsequent applicants.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and physical suffering suffered by the complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay to the complainant the cost of proceedings.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant did not deposit Rs.10,000/- for allotment of flat under Self Financing Scheme but the complainant registered himself under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. In the meantime, OP DDA launched the scheme for conversion of MIG registrations to SFS. It is submitted that the complainant applied for allocation of the flat under this scheme vide application No.13372 on 28.10.91. Accordingly, he was allotted a CAT II SFS flat on First Floor, Block-8, Jasola in the draw held on 6.12.91. The allocation letter was issued to him in the block dates 26.12.91 - 31.12.91. He did not deposit any payment towards the said allocation. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to him on 14.7.92. The complainant further applied for allocation of the flat vide application No.03163 dated 9.1.93. A draw for allocation was held on 23.3.93 and he was allotted a ready built flat Cat II SFS flat No.0149, Pkt. GH 12, Ground Floor, Paschim Puri, New Delhi. The demand-cum- allotment letter was issued to him on 26.03.93 -31.03.93. It is denied that the area was not properly in habitable condition. The complainant did not deposit the money towards the said allotment and hence show cause notice was issued to him on 11.11.94. It is submitted that the complainant got two allocations one in Jasola and other one in Paschim Puri which were cancelled due to non-payment of the demanded amount. Thereafter, the OP cancelled his allotment and informed the complainant vide letter dated 23.01.96 to submit the original FDR as the 5th and 6th scheme had closed. The OP closed the scheme and no more flat is available under the said scheme. The complainant filed the present complaint after 13 years which is barred by limitation U/s 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder and has denied the averments made in the written statement.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. S. K. Jain, Director (Housing) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the OP and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Undisputably, the complainant had been allotted the flats two times but he did not deposit the installment towards either of the two allotments. Ultimately, the second allotment made to him was cancelled by the OP DDA sometimes in 1994. Thereafter, the complainant did not make any correspondence with the OP DDA. In any case, there is no documentary evidence on the record to show that before sending the legal notice on 22.09.08 to the OP the complainant had made any correspondence with the officials of the OP. It is a well settled principle of law that the date of legal notice sent or to be sent on behalf of the complainant cannot extend the period of limitation unless the legal notice has been given a reply by the addressee. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and at the same time the complaint is also barred by limitation U/s 26A of the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it 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 22.07.17.
