DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs AMARJIT SINGH LOOMBA

Challenge in this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") by the Complainant, is to order dated 9.10.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short the ''State Commission'') in Complaint Case No. 89 of 2008. By its impugned order, the State Commission directed the Appellant/DDA to refund Rs. 13,68,150/- after deducting any interest, if paid, by the Complainant in respect of late instalments together with Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation and interest.

The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the Complainant registered himself under NPRS Housing Scheme and was given priority No. 32904. On 31.5.2002, the Complainant was allotted a Flat (MIG/SFS) No. 99, Ground Floor, Sector-14, Pocket-B, Block PH-2, Dwarkapuri, New Delhi under the Hire Purchase Scheme. After 8 & 1/2 months from the date of allotment, a Demand Letter in respect of the aforesaid flat was issued by the DDA for making the payment of the initial deposit of Rs.6,58,085.89/- out of the total consideration of Rs.10,45,300/- on or before 3. 10.2002. On 23.7.2002 the Complainant averred that he had informed the O.P. about change of address vide Regd. Letter but the allotment letter was delivered to him on 15.2.2003, i.e. after 5 months after the date of the last payment. The total cost of the flat mentioned in the Demand letter was totally against the price agreed upon on the basis of the Hire Purchase Agreement executed by the Complainant in favour of the DDA. On 24.2.2003 & 4.5.2003, the Complainant made a Complaint in this respect to the Vice-Chairman of the DDA and requested him to consider his case and issue a fresh demand letter but DDA vide letter dated 10.8.2004 cancelled the allotment without giving him any opportunity before cancellation. On 31.8.2004 and thereafter the Complainant addressed several letters requesting DDA to consider his case. On 9.1.2007 the Complainant received a new Demand Letter from the DDA in respect of the same flat allotted to him in the year 2002. In this letter, apart from the initial demand of Rs.10,45,300/-, a new demand of Rs.21,18,277.62/- was made, which is against the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The Opposite party took five years for the issue of the new demand letter dated 9.1.2007 in respect of the same flat for which there is no fault of the Complainant. On 7.2.2007, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party requesting an explanation for the high price and to reduce the excess amount from the price mentioned in the letter.

Subsequently, the Complainant/Respondent received a letter dated 7.2.2007 from the Opposite party that the price quoted in the subsequent Demand Letter is as per the approved policy, and that if the demand is not made within the due date, the allotment would be cancelled. An amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was deposited by the Complainant as per demand letter dated 8.6.2007 and the Complainant sought for extension. On 5.7.2007, the Opposite party had given an assurance to extend the period of payment by three months but the extension was given upto 9.9.2007 to deposit the entire amount. The Complainant averred that the entire payment was made and the possession of the flat was delivered to him on 27.12.2007. The Complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking direction to DDA to refund the excess amount collected from him together with compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs and costs.

The Opposite party has filed written statement stating that the Complainant had not paid the demanded amount within the stipulated period when the first demand cum allotment letter was issued. The Complainant made a request for change of address and the allotment letter was re-directed on the changed address on 13.2.2003 and the allotment letter was cancelled on 16.8.2004 due to non-payment of demand. The Complainant was allotted the flat under the Hire Purchase Scheme and the revised date was issued to the Complainant on 29.12.2006 and the final date was given as 9.6.2007. The Complainant''s request to reduce the price and make the payment on the earlier demand cum allotment was turned down. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- on 8.6.2007, Rs.18,30,000/- through different challans on 5.11.2007. They submit that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf as the Complainant had not adhered to the payment terms. The State Commission allowed the Complaint observing as follows: "14. In view of the law, as mentioned here in above, that DDA shall charge the price of the flat in question on the basis of the earlier demand-cum-allotment letter issued on 5. 7.2002 by which the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.10,45,300/- and not on the subsequent demand-cum-allotment letter dated 11 December, 2006 requiring the th complainant to deposit Rs.21,18,277.62. In this complaint, the complainant has claimed the excess amount of Rs.10,45,300/-. The material on record goes to show that the

complainant has paid Rs.24,13,350/- as against Rs.21,29,927.45. The complainant has not filed any receipt of payment of the amount of Rs.2,40,000 (Rs.26,53,450 - 24,13,450) It shall be taken that the complainant deposited only Rs.24,13,450/-. Under these circumstances, the excess amount over Rs.10, 45,300/- which comes to Rs.13,68,150/- shall be refunded but this amount can be further reduced, if the DDA has charged any interest in respect of the cost of the flat on the basis of the earlier letters.

The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.3 lakh including the litigation charges. The material on record goes to show that the complainant was originally issued demand-cum-allotment in the year 2002 and after knocking the doors of the various authorities, finally got the demand-cum-allotment in December, 2006 i.e. after waiting more than 4 years. Suffice to say that he had deposited the amount of Rs.25 lakh after taking the loan, which has caused mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering for which we quantify the amount of Rs. 1 lakh including the litigation charges.

We hereby direct (i) that DDA shall refund Rs.13,68,150/- (this amount can be reduced if any interest is paid by the complainant in respect of the late payment of the installments). (ii) The OP shall also pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering including the litigation cost.

The aforesaid payment shall be made within 30 days from today and in case the amount, as mentioned in above para, is not refunded within 30 days, the OP shall thereafter pay interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization.

We request the Vice-Chairman, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA to institute an inquiry in order to fix the responsibility of the officer/officials who caused the financial loss to the DDA".

Learned counsel for the Appellant/DDA submitted that on 25.6.2002, the Appellant herein had issued a Demand cum allotment letter to the Respondent on the address given by him. As per the demand letter the Complainant had to deposit the amount towards cost of the flat as per the schedule mentioned in the demand letter. The envelope was returned with the remarks ''LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS''. On 19.7.2002, another letter was addressed stating that if the amount was not paid, the allotment would be cancelled. It was only on 23.7.2002 that the Respondent had sent a request for change of address and the allotment letter was re-issued on 13.2.2003 to the

changed address. On 16.8.2004, the Appellant had cancelled the allotment of the flat on account of non-payment. On 31.8.2004, the Respondent had written a letter to the Appellant to reconsider his case and issue fresh demand cum-allotment letter and the Competent Authority had finally acceded to his request on 23.9.2006.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that on 29.12.2006 the Appellant had issued the revised demand-cum- allotment letter for the flat in question with the revised rate. On 7.2.2007, the Respondent requested the Appellant to reduce the cost of the flat and once again on 13.9.2007, the Respondent requested DDA to convert the payment from Hire Purchase basis to cash down basis. On 24.12.2007, the possession letter was issued after the payment was received from the Respondent i.e. Rs.18,30,000/- on 7.9.2007, Rs.1,86,000/- on 5.11.2007 and Rs.20,000/- restoration charges on 22.11.2007. The conveyance deed was also executed on 1.1.2008. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that once the second allotment has been made and the amount has been deposited, now the Respondent cannot seek for refund of any excess amount. As against this, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the Complainant did not receive the demand notice cum allotment letter till 15.2.2003 i.e., 5 months after the last date of payment. He further submitted that it is admitted by DDA that the Respondent had deposited the amount for the allotted flat in excess as per the second demand cum allotment letter dated 11.12.2006. The change of address was also informed well in advance. It was only after repeated requests and a series of correspondence with the higher Authorities of the DDA that this request was acceded to and the same flat which was allotted to him in 2002 was once again allotted at a much higher price, which is against the principles of natural justice. The flat was delivered to him after a gap of 5 years. The change of address was informed in the year 2002 itself and if there is any delay in issuing the second demand cum allotment letter on behalf of DDA, the Complainant cannot be penalized.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation as the second allotment was done on 11.12.2006 and the Complainant is questioning and demanding the benefit of the allotment done in the year 2002. As it is an admitted fact that the 2 allotment was nd done on 11.12.2006 and the possession was delivered on 27.12.2007 and the consumer complaint was filed in the year 2008, the contention of the Appellant that the complaint is barred by limitation, does not hold good.

The letter informing the Appellant about the change of address is dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure-III) and reads as under: "To

The Deputy Director,

Delhi Development Authority,

INA, Vikas Sadan,

New Delhi.

Sub: Change of Address: B-196, West Patel Nagar, ND-8 to C-30, New Moti Nagar, ND-110008.

Ref: MIG Flat vide Registration Certificate No. 18956. Priority No. 32904 date of Regd. 19.5.1980.

Sir,

It is bring to your kind notice that I Amarjit Singh Loomba have regd. a MIG Flat vide Regn. Certificate No. 18956, Priority No. 32904, when I was residing at: B-196, West patel Nagar, ND-110008. Now I have shifted my residence from B-196, West Patel Nagar, ND-8 to House No. C-30, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110 015.

Therefore, you are requested to make necessary changes in your record and also send us all the correspondence at my New residence address, i.e. C-30, New Moti Nagar, ND-110 015. Early action will be highly appreciated.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(AMARJEET SINGH LOOMBA)

C-30, New Moti Nagar,

New Delhi-110 015.

Dated: 23.7.2002

Place: Delhi".

It is not in dispute that the last date of payment for the initial allotment was 3.10.2002, which was delivered to the Complainant after five months of the expiry of the last date and it was only after making a lot of effort and addressing several letters that the second demand-cum-allotment letter was issued on 11.12.2006. A brief perusal of the record shows that the Respondent/Complainant had addressed letters dated 24.2.2003 (Pg. 74), 8.5.2003 (pg.75), 31.8.2004(Pg. 76), 29.211.2004(pg. 79), 8.12.2004(pg. 80), 24.1.2005 (pg. 81), 18.7.2005 (pg. 84), 11.8.2005 (pg. 85), 5.9.2005 (pg. 86), 7.11.2005 (pg. 88), 15.12.2005 (pg. 89), 26.12.2005 (pg. 90), 9.1.2006 (pg. 91), 8.2.2006 (pg. 92), 16.2.2006 (pg. 93), 6.3.2006 (pg. 95), 7.3.2006 (pg. 97), 27.3.2006 (pg. 98), 12.4.2006 (pg. 100) and 18.5.2006 (pg. 105), all written to the concerned Authorities with respect to request for issue of fresh demand letter regarding subject flat No. 99, Sector XIV, Pocket-B, Dwaraka, New Delhi, due to late issue of original demand letter. In the very first letter dated 24.2.2003 (pg. 74), the Respondent/Complainant had written to the Appellant that the letter dated nil was delivered to him by registered post, which copy of the acknowledgment he had enclosed for ready reference(letter reads as follows): "To

The Vice Chairman,

Delhi Development Authority,

INA Market, Vikas Sadan,

New Delhi.

Sub: COMPLAINT AGAINST DELIBERATELY DELAY IN DESPATCH OF DEMAND LETTER IN CASE FILE NO. M332(3700)/2002-RPRS-1856.

Dear Sir,

With extreme reverence, I submit the following facts to your kind notice for favour of your consideration and early orders:

THAT the demand letter No. 14911 dated nil indicating to make its payment by 03.10.2002 has been delivered to me by Regd . AD Post on 15.02.2003 (copy of the acknowledged envelope enclosed for ready reference).

THAT since the above demand letter has been deliberately or mischievously sent to me at my recorded address. I, therefore, could not avail off any opportunity from the DDA to make payment of the said Demand Note in time. I am further told that due to non-payment of the above cited Demand Letter, the same has been cancelled by the concerned officials of the DDA.

Since there is no fault on my part in payment of the said Demand Letter within due date and since I have never received any intimation from the DDA regarding payment of the said flat except the only D/Letter, referred to above.I, therefore, pray to your goodself to kindly issue appropriate instructions to the concerned of your department to send me a fresh Demand Letter affording sufficient period to make the payment as I haveofshelter for my family in or outside Delhi till date.Presently, I am residing in a rented accommodation which I am unable to afford under my circumstances.I belong to Weaker Section and Minority Community.

Thanking you with best regards,

Yours faithfully,

(AMARJEET SINGH LOOMBA)

C-30, New Moti Nagar,

New Delhi-110 015.

Dated: 24.2.2003

Encl: Copy of D/Letter

Copies to: 1. Lt. Governor, Delhi

Lok Adalat, New Delhi. "

Subsequently, he had also written for extension of time for paying the balance amount which was acceded to and the amount was paid. On 23.4.2007(Pg. 104), the Respondent had once again written to the Vice Chairman, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi requesting for reduction of excess amount in his fresh demand letter and also for extension of time for payment of the balance amount.

Taking all the facts and circumstances into account, i.e. the fact that the Complainant vide Registered letter dated 23.7.2002 had informed the Appellant herein about the change of address, had run from pillar to post and finally got the demand cum allotment letter in December, 2006, after a long wait of four years, the State Commission had rightly directed for refund of the amount of Rs.13,68,150/- , (which amount can be reduced if any interest is paid by the Complainant in respect of the late payment of the instalments). The State Commission had also awarded compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, which is on the higher side and is reduced to Rs.50,000/- and the default interest awarded is reduced from 9% to 6% p.a., to meet the ends of justice.

In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part reducing the compensation from Rs. One lakh to Rs.50,000/- and the default interest from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a., while confirming the rest of the order of the State Commission. However, out of the amount of Rs.35,000/- deposited as statutory amount in this Commission, a sum of Rs.15,000/- shall stand transferred to ''Legal Aid Account'' of this Commission and balance amount of Rs.20,000/- to ''Consumer Welfare Fund'' maintained by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs.