CHETAN KUMARI vs VICE CHAIRMAN, D.D.A.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant got herself registered for purchasing a flat in a Scheme known as "Now Pattern of Intending Purchasers of MIG/LIG/ Janta categories" to be constructed by the Delhi Development Authority in 1979. She was allotted a MIG Flat No. 6, IInd Floor, Block E1, Pocket 9, Sector 15, Rohini on 27.4.90. She received the letter of allotment on 15.6.90. It is alleged that she deposited the entire amount of Rs. 2,03,610.15 in time and completed all the formalities within 90 days of the receipt of the letter. However, the respondent cancelled the allotment vide letters dated 13.12.90 & 15.1.91. She has challenged the letters of cancellation on the ground that the complainant complied with the order of the respondent regarding depositing of the amount and submission of the documents and therefore they had no authority to cancel the flat.

SHE has consequently prayed that the respondent be directed to withdraw the cancellation letters dated 13.12.90 and 15.1.91, hand over the possession of the said flat to the complainant and pay compensation to the tune of rupees 50,000/- to her. The complaint has been contested by the respondent. They admitted that the complainant got herself registered for purchasing a flat under the scheme and that she was allotted the above said flat through draw of lots. It is alleged by them that the letter of allotment was dispatched to her on 23.4.90/27.4.90 and the said letter was received back with the remarks of the postal authorities that no such person was available at the given address. That letter was again sent to her at her office address but that was again received back. It is further pleaded that after receipt of several undelivered demand letters a press notification was issued in leading newspapers on 21.6.90 stating that the allotment had been made up to priority no. 8838. The persons whose letters have been received back undelivered should Collect their letters from the Office of the DDA. The complainant did not collect the letter herself. After receipt of the letter of allotment she did not comply with all the formalities within the stipulated period as mentioned therein. Consequently her allotment stood cancelled automatically in terms of the allotment letter. In the aforesaid circumstances allotment of flat was cancelled.

We have gone through the correspondence of the parties. The allotment letter dated 23.4.90/27.4.90 by the DDA was dispatched in an envelope on which complainant''s address was given as, Miss Chetan Kumar''. Consequently the postman did not deliver the letter to the complainant. But she came to know about the said letter from the postman. Thereafter a letter dated 18.5.90 was written by Sh. V.P. Anand, father of the complainant, to the Asstt. Director (Housing) DDA in which he requested the Asstt. Director to send the letter to her again with correct name. Thus she received the letter late for no fault on her part. After receipt of the letter of allotment she informed the Commissioner (DDA) vide her letter dated 21.6.90 that she received the said letter on 15.6.90 and therefore she could not deposit the amount between 28.4.90 and 26.6.90. She requested that the last date of payment be changed from 26.6.90 to 26.7.90. She did not hear anything in reply from DDA. However, she deposited the amount before 26.7.90. It is relevant to point out that in the letter of allotment three different periods had been provided for depositing the amount If the amount was deposited during the 1st period, less interest was to be paid, but if it was paid during the 2nd & 3rd period, higher interest was to be paid by the depositor.

AFTER depositing the amount, she wrote a letter dated 10.9.90 to the Deputy Director that she had deposited the amount within the extended time limit and that she was sending the various documents required by them. She requested that the possession of the flat be given to her. In reply she received a letter dated 13.12.90 (In fact it is 3.12.90) from the Asstt. Director, DDA informing her that the allotment of the flat in her favour had been cancelled due to non-submission of documents and payment within due date. It was not specifically mentioned in the letter as to what documents had not been submitted by her, nor it was mentioned that how she committed the breach in depositing the amount. In reply to the letter dated 13.12.90 (in fact it is 3.12.90) she wrote to the Deputy Director a letter dated 6.12.90 (C-7) giving the history of the case and requesting him to restore the allotment. In reply to her letter dated 6.12.90 she received a letter dated 15.1.90 from the Asstt. Director that the allotment of the flat had been cancelled in view of her request and therefore she should arrange to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,982/- on account of cancellation charges, and in case she failed to do so within 15 days from the date of the issue of the letter her registration would be taken to be cancelled, and cancellation charges would be adjusted against her registration deposit and interest accrued thereon. However, in case she paid the cancellation charges in time her registration would be kept in tact but her seniority would be at the tale end. Her father, Sh. Anand replied that letter vide dated 25.2.91 (C-9) wherein e after giving history of the case, said that she never applied for cancellation of the allotment and therefore the question of payment of some additional amount did not arise. He further requested that the possession of the flat be delivered to her,

FROM a perusal of the above said correspondence it is evidence that the respondent in the first instance gave wrong name of the complainant on the envelop containing the letter of allotment so that the letter be not delivered to her. She was, however, vigilant and write back to the Assistant Director the circumstances in which the letter had been returned and requested him to send the said letter with correct name on the envelope. After receipt of the letter, she deposited the amount and submitted the papers required by the respondent. Finding that the respondents were left with no other alternative but to allot the flat to her, the Assistant Director without going into the details of the case, cancelled her allotment on the ground that the payment had not been made and documents had not been deposited within due time. When she confronted them with the fact that both the things had been done, the Asstt. Director took a somersault and informed her that the cancellation had been done at her request and directed her to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,982/- on account of cancellation charges. The learned counsel for respondents has not been able to reconcile these two letters nor he was able to support the stand taken by the DDA. The correspondence between the parties show that the letters on behalf of the DDA had been written to harass the complainant and to deprive her of the flat. Such an action on the part of the officials of the DDA does not appear to be bonafide and requires a thorough probe by the DDA. On account of the said illegal acts the complainant suffered mental agony and pain and is entitled to exemplary damages. Consequently she, in our view, is entitled to get the possession of the flat from the respondent and damages for putting the complainant to harassment We assess the damages as rupees 10,000/-. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs, quash the impugned notices and direct the respondents to give possession of the flat to the complainant within six weeks and pay Rs. 10,000/- as damages to her within a period of three months. In case they fail to do so within the prescribed period an action will be taken against the officers of the D.D.A. under the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1,500/-. Before parting with the judgment it may be observed that the officials of the respondent have acted in an illegal and high handed manner. The DDA should institute an enquiry and fix the responsibility of the delinquent officials and realize the amount of damages and the costs from such officials. Complaint allowed.