PER MR. C. VISWANATH, MEMBER

          This Revision Petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 500/2010; dated 12.10.2012.

          Smt. Nirmal Srivastava, booked an LIG Flat with the Petitioner/Opposite Party on 28.09.1979, by depositing a sum of Rs.1,500/-.  She was allotted Flat No. 42 Ground Floor, Pocket-13, Sector-22, Rohini and was directed to deposit Rs.3,78,080.70 by 30.12.2001, vide demand letter dated 23.10.2001.  On 28.11.2001 Smt. Nirmal Srivastava applied for transfer of allotment of the Flat in favour of her son, the Respondent/Complainant.

          The Respondent states that all the requisite documents alongwith the application were given and confirmation amount of Rs.15,000/- was deposited with the Petitioner.  When the transfer of the allotment was not done till 1.5.2006, the Respondent approached Lok-Adalat set up by the Petitioner.  In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the proceedings in the Lok Adalat, the Petitioner issued another demand letter dated 22.6.2006 directing the Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.3,81,861.50 towards cost of the Flat, which he deposited on 28.7.2006. However, the Petitioner further demanded a sum of Rs.3,83,468/- vide letter dated 14.8.2006 towards interest, restoration charges, late submission of documents, ground-rent surcharge and difference of conversion charges alongwith processing fee.

          The Respondent objected to the additional demand, contending that his mother applied for transfer of Flat in his favour, duly submitting all the requisite documents, but the Petitioner took five years to effect the transfer on various pretexts.  In fact, as per the Guidelines issued by the Petitioner Organisation, transfer of Flat has to be affected within sixty days of production of the documents.  

          The Respondent also approached the Central Information Commission.  The Central Information Commissioner, after hearing the parties, observed that the DDA had delayed the transfer of the Flat due to which the Respondent is required to pay interest on the cost of the Flat. 

          District Forum vide order dated 24.5.2010 directed the Petitioner to deliver the possession of Flat No. 42, Pocket 13, Sector 22, Rohini, New Delhi and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the Respondent for having caused mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering, inclusive of litigation charges.

          Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner appealed before the State Commission contending that the Respondent was liable to deposit the demanded amount by 29.1.2002, whereafter, the allotment stood automatically cancelled. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent furnished all the required documents only on 6.10.2005 and transfer of allotment in his favour was allowed on 22.6.2006. Respondent was, then, asked to deposit Rs.3,81,861/- vide letter dated 22.6.2006, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the terms and conditions of the allotment would remain unchanged.  The Respondent deposited the sum of Rs.3,81,861/- on 11.7.2006 which was the cost of the Flat prior to 29.1.2002. The Respondent was also required to pay a further sum of Rs.3,83,468/- on account of interest, delayed payments, restoration charges etc., which he has not done so far. Since the Respondent himself took a lot of time to furnish the documents including the FDR in original, which he submitted only on 6.10.2005, the Petitioner was entitled to charge statutory interest on the cost of the Flat.

          The Petitioner pointed out certain deficiencies in the application for transfer of allotment on 11.12.2001, confirmation amount was not deposited, undertaking was not properly signed and the signatures of Smt. Nirmala Srivatava did not tally. The Respondent informed the Petitioner on 10.1.2002, that confirmation amount had already been deposited on 28.11.2001 and also submitted another copy of the deposit challan on 10.1.2002.  Other objections were also removed in person.  Specimen signatures with photo from transfer and transferee, duly attested by Senior Law Officer of DDA, were also submitted. 

          The Petitioner again asked the Respondent to submit N.O.C from transferor and transferee and also proof of deposit of confirmation amount on 8.8.2002. The Petitioner continued to ask for these documents on 23.12.2003, 22.6.2004 and 21.6.2005.  The Respondent again submitted zerox copy of third copy of Bank challan dated 28.11.2001 regarding deposit of Rs.15,000/-.  There was no need for NOC for transfer within family members.

          The Petitioner, thereafter, vide letter dated 13.9.2005 asked for original FDR and Registration Certificate and on 6.10.2005 again demanded the original third copy of Bank challan dated 28.11.2001, which had been misplaced by them. This was provided by the Respondent again on 6.10.2005. The Petitioner insisted on original FDR on 21.10.2005 and also asked for indemnity Bond regarding the missing of original FDR vide their letter dated 5.12.2005, which the Respondent submitted vide receipt dated 5.12.2005. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay in transfer of Flat in his name, the Respondent approached the DDA Lok Adalat on 1.5.2006 where also the Petitioner did not cooperate and the Lok Adalat closed the matter as unsettled, as the Respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum Mehrauli and the matter was pending there.  During the pendency of the complaint, the Petitioner again asked for documents vide letter dated 7.9.2007 and they scaled down their demand for penal interest to Rs.1.36 Lakhs.

          Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the records.  We find no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the allotment with regard to the Flat stood automatically cancelled on 29.1.2002 on account of non-payment of Rs.3,81,861.50 as demanded vide letter dated 30.10.2001, because before the due date the original allottee had applied for transfer of allotment in favour of her son, the Respondent had deposited the confirmation amount of Rs.15000/- vide Challan No. 75731 dated 28.11.2001, in State Bank of India, INA, New Delhi, in favour of the Petitioner as required in the demand cum-allotment letter dated 28.11.2001. It is the Petitioner who had delayed the transfer from 28.11.2001 till 22.6.2006 by asking different documents each time, including N.O.C.

          We are convinced that this is yet another case of an individual suffering in the hands of bureaucratic inefficiency, indifference and apathy.  This is a very simple case of transfer of Flat within the members of a family, clearly covered by the Guidelines of DDA.  As per their own Citizens Charter, this has to be affected within 60 days, whereas in the present case, it has still not reached its finality, despite the Respondent supplying various documents demanded routinely and repetitively, personally visiting the office on several occasions and approaching various authorities like CIC, Lok Adalat, District Forum and State Commission.  The Petitioner is clearly responsible for all the delay that has occurred so far.  Different documents have been sought from the Respondent on different dates, some of which are not required and relevant.  The Respondent has personally visited the office and submitted them promptly.  Despite the best efforts of the Respondent, the Petitioner organisation puts the blame squarely on the Respondent and levies interest, which is more than the original cost of the Flat, which the Respondent refuses to pay.  He has been cooperating all through.  At the same time, he has been seeking justice and is not prepared to succumb to the undue and unjust demands of the Petitioner Organisation. 

          Delay between 28.11.2001 is attributable to the Petitioner, as is clearly established by several orders passed by various Fora, as well as admission by Petitioner’s Law Officer, which reads as follows:- 

“I have gone through the bulky file containing the documents required for transfer of allotment in blood relation.  In this case Smt. Nirmal Srivastava was registered under the NPRS-79 for allotment of LIG Category Flat and she has submitted the documents for transfer of allotment in favour of her son Sh. Mukul Srivastava in the year 28.11.2001.  The department observed certain deficiency and he had also given the reply informing that she has already deposited the confirmation amount and annexed the challan thereon.  Surprisingly, the Department insisted for NOC from the transferor and transferee.  According to my mind there is no requirement of NOC from the transferor and transferee because they had submitted all the documents as per the prescribed specimen in the booklet available on the Counter.  The transferee has also clarified on this irrelevant requirement of NOC in so many letters available on the file.  The department took its own time and finally on 22.06.06 at page 115/C approved the transfer in blood relation in the name of her son.  I am of the view that the transferee has submitted the documents as per the prescribed specimen/format provided by the department.”

          The entire sequence of events constitutes deficiency in service and the Petitioner is squarely responsible for the same. 

          The Revision Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and orders of the State Commission and District Forum are upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.