Delhi

StateCommission

A/519/2015

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. THAKUR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :11.03.2019

Date of Decision : 18.03.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.519 /2015

In the matter of:

 

Delhi Development Authority,

Through its Vice Chairman,

Vikas Sadan, INA,

New delhi-110023.………Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

Shri Thakur Singh,

Son of Late Chand Singh,

R/o. A-112/2,

Paryavaran Complex,

IGNOU Road (Saket),

New Delhi-110030...….Respondent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Aggrieved by order dated 14.03.14 passed by District Forum II allowing the complaint of respondent and directing the appellant to restore membership of the complainant qua AAY1989 scheme/ seniority/ priority of  the respondent and to consider his case for allotment in subsequent scheme, if there existed no house to be allotted to the respondent in the concerned scheme. The appellant was also directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs for harassment, mental agony and torture including cost of litigation.
2.  The facts lie in a narrow compass. The respondent registered himself for allotment of MIG flat under Ambedkar Avas Yojana 1989 (AAY) special housing registration scheme for SC/ST person. He deposited Rs.12,000/- with the appellant which is still lying with the appellant. The appellant allowed type A (one room unit) i.e. incremental flat no.4, Block-D at Dwarka, (Bindapur) constructed on 20.5  sq. meters under expendable housing scheme. Appellant did so of its own against eligibility criteria. The respondent got himself registered for allotment of type-B  flat (three room unit). Order of preference was also available. Respondent opted for second choice of type of house. On inspection respondent was surprised to find that allotted accommodation was less than was stipulated in table 2 of the brochure for type-B flats constructed on 40 sq. meters. The condition of the flat was deplorable. So he did not accept the allotment. In the mean time appellant issued policy guidelines dated 23.05.95 vide which appellant decided that those registrants of NPRS 79/AAY 89 who are allotted incremental flat before announcement of EHS 1995 were  not liable to pay cancellation charges/ surrender charges and their seniority/ priority would remain intact.
3. Respondent vide letter dated 01.08.96 requested for cancellation of allotment and restoration of previous number priority of AAY 89. His request was rejected by appellant vide letter dated 17.07.97.
4. The appellant filed WS stating that it opened expandable housing scheme 1995 from 24.01.95 to 02.02.95. respondent submitted application no.B9212 dated 01.03.95. It denied that it allotted flat to the complainant under EHS 1995 of its own, against eligibility criteria. In the draw held in 1995, respondent was allotted flat no.470, Block B, Pkt. 3, Bindapur which was incremental flat, respondent could construct said flat up to second storey adhering to the terms and conditions. Instead of depositing the demanded amount, the respondent requested for cancellation of allotment due to financial constraints on01.08.96 Ex CW 1/L. On this request, the allotment as well as registration of respondent was cancelled. Letter dated 17.07.97 was sent to that effect and it was mentioned that no registration money was refundable as request for cancellation was received beyond 60 days of issue of demand letter. It denied that notification dated 23.05.95 was applicable in the case of respondent.
5. Both the parties filed evidence by affidavit and written arguments. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments, the District Forum arrived at a conclusion that request for cancellation of the flat was not a condition precedent for non application of circular. It did not accept the objection of the appellant that after cancellation of flat, respondent did not remain consumer. It found that since respondent have not received the refund, he continued to be consumer. He had made request for allotment of type B (three room unit). Hence the impugned order was passed.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The validity of act of the appellant in cancelling the allotment or justifiability thereof can not be agitated. The reason being that appellant did not cancel the same of its own. Rather it did so on the basis of request from respondent. When an applicant himself applies for cancelation, there is no rerequirement to justify the act of cancellation.
7. During arguments I took copy of request of complainant which is internal page 14 of the file of appellant. I also took copy of letter from appellant to respondent which is internal page 15 of the file of appellant.  The same have been kept on record of appeal file. Request for cancellation unequivocally recites that due to unforeseen circumstances and prevailing financial constraints the respondent was unable to arrange payment of the demanded amount in connection with allotment of flat 470. It does not say even a single  word about the size of flat or deplorable condition of flat. Hence the order of the District Forum directing appellant to restore the flat or consider respondent in a fresh scheme, can not be sustained.
8. However I am unable to appreciate the plea of appellant that it is not liable to refund the registration amount or that the registration  amount is liable to be forfeited simply because cancellation was made more than 60 days  after the offer letter. I may also mention that request for cancellation refers to letter of appellant dated 05.07.96. The request for cancellation bears dated 01.08.96 which is within 60 days but the same appears to have been delivered in the office of appellant on 16.09.96 which is beyond 60 days. Whatever  may be the gap between the offer letter and request for cancellation, equity, fairness and good conscious requires appellant which is a semi government to act fairly and on the principles of natural justice.  It must refund the amount which it has received from the applicants / registrants. It must also pay interest at reasonable rate  say 12% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 29.12.89 till the date of refund. Accordingly the appeal is accepted in part, impugned order is modified to the effect that appellant would refund Rs.12,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from 29.12.89 till the date of refund. The same will take care of compensation and cost of litigation also. The appellant to comply with the order within two months from the receipt of copy of this order.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
10. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)