DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs NEELAM SEHGAL

IT is unfortunate that for the indifferent and mischievous attitude of the officials of the appellant posted in the department dealing with allotment of the flats and handing over of possession of flats consumers are suffering immensely as this Commission has come across many such cases which manifestly project intentional harassment of the consumers on one excuse or the other. Instead of helping the consumer, the appellant authority has become a source of a harassment. The appellant authority should keep in mind that it is constituted for the welfare of the people and in spite of protecting their interests they tend to become a precursor and persecutor.

IN the instant case, the appellant has filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 2.12.2003 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, INstitutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 881/2001-entitled Smt. Neelam Sehgal v. Delhi Development Authority, directing the appellant to refund the booking amount with interest as the respondent was forced to cancel the allotment because of the attitude of the appellant''s officials in not handing over the possession of the flat and keeping on writing to the respondent letter after letter to send the documents to them which the respondent had already sent on 13.12.1990 through registered letter. So much so even the refund was not made to the respondent despite her efforts and writing to the Lt. Governor/Chairman of the DDA. The facts germane for the purpose of this appeal are like this. The respondent was allotted a flat for which she deposited Rs. 15,240/- on 25.6.1990 vide DD dated 25.6.1990 against receipt dated 27.6.1990/13.7.1990. Despite having completed all the formalities, possession of the flat was not handed over to him and whenever the respondent asked for handing over the possession, the appellant would write to her to send the documents which she had already sent to the appellant on 13.12.1990 by way of registered letter. Having got exhausted and exasperated, the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant on 18.11.1991 seeking cancellation of the allotment and to return the money deposited by her with interest after deducting the cancellation charges. The refund was not made despite her efforts and writing letters to the Vice-Chairman of the Appellant Authority and she was forced to approach the District Forum wherein she claimed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses and the District Forum directed the appellant to refund the money deposited by her with 12% interest w.e.f. 26.6.1991 till payment.

The complaint of the respondent was resisted by the appellant by taking the plea that the payment was not made on 26.6.1990 but was made on 14.7.1990 only when the Demand Draft was submitted in the cash branch and further that though the appellant received certain documents on 17.12.1990 but these were incomplete documents. According to the appellant, respondent did not submit original documents she was required to submit and because of this, the case for refund of the amount could not be processed. It was also pleaded that once the original documents are submitted, the refund is allowed as per rules. The appellant also took the plea that the complaint, filed by the respondent was barred by time. However this plea was rejected by the District Forum and rightly so as the respondent had asked for refund in 1991 but the appellant insisted for submission of original documents and on 4.12.2000 a letter was sent by the appellant asking her to submit original documents so that the case of refund could be processed. At the most the period of limitation would start running from the date of this letter. The complaint, which was filed on 24.3.2001 is thus within two years of the letter dated 4.12.2000 and is, therefore, well within limitation.

NOW on merit it appears vide letter dated 13.12.1990, the original documents despatched by the respondent were misplaced by the appellant and as a result, the respondent sent an affidavit to the appellant that since the FDR/registration have been lost she was ready to furnish the indemnity bond. It appears that none of the officials in the appellant department cared to read this letter and continued sending letters after letters insisting the respondent to submit original documents. The stand taken by the appellant that demand draft was handed over on 14.7.1990 is against the record. The receipt of having received demand draft was issued by the appellant on 27.6.1990. The respondent also furnished indemnity bond but still the deposit money was not refunded. It is not understandable as to what prevented the appellant to refund the amount to the respondent as the respondent had submitted indemnity bond. The District Forum has rightly directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 15,240/- with interest. However, this Commission awards Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as the respondent was not refunded the amount in spite of her having been forced by the appellant to cancel the allotment because of original documents having been lost at the end of the appellant.

APPEAL is dismissed with suo motu relief of compensatory amount to the respondent. The FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities. A copy of this order, as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. Appeal dismissed.