RAJINDER SINGH vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE present complaint has been filed under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') by Sh. Rajinder Singh against Delhi Development Authority through its Vice-Chairman and Commissioner (Housing) D.D.A.

THE facts of the case in brief are that the complainant is an employee of Delhi Administration working as U.D.C. in the DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. In response to the advertisement of the O.P.-DDA, the complainant got himself registered for an LIG flat vide application form No. 207357 bearing registration No. 48141. THE complainant as per requirement of the scheme also deposited Rs. 1,500 on 28.9.1979 and his priority number was 18527. At that time the cost of the flat as indicated by the O.P.-DDA was Rs. 18,000/-. After more than 11 years a flat in Sector 15 Block G. Pocket 2 No. 29 FST, Rohini was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 3.5.1990 in pursuance of a draw held in March, 1990. THE complainant was asked to deposit the full cost of the flat amounting to Rs 95,054.16 by 1.8.1990. THE complainant requested for extension of time as the cost of the flat escalated more than five times than that of the original cost. THE complainant sent written requests to the O.P. DDA for extension of time on 19.7.1990, 9.8.1990, 12.9.1990, 11.10.1990 and 24.10.1990. However, in spite of the complainant''s request for extension of time, the O.P.-DDA cancelled the allotment of the flat on 28.9.1990 for non-compliance of the terms stipulated in the allotment-cum-demand letter. THE complainant also visited the office of the O.P. several times and explained the circumstances under which he was not in a position to arrange the funds immediately but nothing was done. THEn the complainant made representation to the Assistant Director (Housing) on 6.12.1990 with a request for reconsideration of his name for an alternative flat at Rohini. On the representation of the complainant, the Commissioner (housing) listed the matter in the Public Hearing Day on 21.1.1991. On that day the Commissioner (Housing) assured the complainant that he would examine the case sympathetically. In February, 1991 the Commissioner (Housing) sent the file to the Vice-Chairman, DA who agreed for allotment of an alternative flat in the name of the complainant through a mini draw to be held in March, 1991. In the meanwhile the complainant applied for House Building Loan and advance withdrawal of GPF from Delhi Administration and after the loan and advance from GPF was sanctioned the complainant deposited Rs. 95,054.16 vide Bank Draft along with FDR of Rs. 1,500/- and other documents in pursuance to the allotment letter. THE O.P. accepted the said amount from the complainant and issued a letter dated 23.11.1990 asking the complainant to deposit the cancellation charges of Rs. 2,647/- within 60 days for consideration of the complainant''s name at the tail-end of the priority list. The complainant stated that in spite of the decision of the Vice-Chairman his case was not considered in the mini draw held in March, 1991. In the meanwhile the complainant received another allotment-cum-demand letter dated 27.2.1992 from the O.P.-DDA informing the complainant that a flat at Pocket A-I, Type II, GR 8 and 9 No. 68 D FST located at Kondli Gharoli has been allotted to the complainant in the general draw held on 27.2.1999. The complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 76,100/- by 27.5.1992 and the total cost of the flat was shown as Rs. 1,94,900/-. According to the complainant, he initially applied for an LIG flat as the indicated cost was Rs. 18,000/- in 1979 but when the flat was allotted in May, 1990 the cost of the flat escalated to Rs. 1,94,900/- and the complainant was directed to deposit the money within two months. However, while the complainant was arranging for funds the allotment was cancelled by the O.P.-DDA. It is further stated by the complainant that he applied for an LIG Flat in Rohini and not in Kondli Gharoli and has deposited the cancellation charges for the allotment of flat at Rohini. However the O.P. allotted him a flat at Kondli Gharoli after two years and the estimated cost was more than double of the earlier flat allotted to the complainant at Rohini which was subsequently cancelled. The complainant did not deposit the amount for the flat at Kondli Gharoli as he was not interested in a flat at a different place but he continued his efforts and made representation to the O.P.-DDA for allotment of a flat at Rohini.

The case of the complainant is that the allotment of the flat at Rohini was cancelled by the O.P.-DDA arbitrarily in spite of his several requests for extension of time. The O.P.-DDA also accepted the amount deposited by him along with the cancellation charges but in spite of the directions of the Vice-Chairman, DDA did not allot alternate flat to the complainant at Rohini. Since then, the complainant has been running from pillar to post for getting a flat allotted at Rohini as the allotment of flat at Rohini to the complainant was cancelled arbitrarily.

UNABLE to get any relief from any quarter the complainant filed the present complaint before this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-DDA. The complainant has claimed allotment of a flat at Rohini as he had made necessary payment of Rs. 95,054.16 in 1990. The complainant has also alleged that at present the cost of a LIG flat is Rs. 5,00,000/- and hence the O.P. be directed to pay this amount to the complainant. The complainant has further claimed Rs. 90,000/- on account of payment of rent which he had made during this period. The complainant has further claimed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum for the loss incurred. He has also claimed Rs. 15,000/- as interest paid by him to Delhi Administration towards building advance and another Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony, besides Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation. In total the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 6,40,000/- and also directions to the O.P. to allot a flat to the complainant at Rohini against the amount already deposited by the complainant in 1990. The O.P.-DDA in its reply denied any deficiency in service on its part and stated that the default was on the part of the complainant himself who did not make the required payment as per terms of the allotment letter and automatically the allotment of the flat was cancelled on 1.8.1990. The O.P. also stated that the request of the complainant for extension of time was rejected and he was informed about it vide letter dated 28.9.1990. According to the O.P. the complainant has himself deposited the amount of Rs. 95,054.16 on 13.11.1990, even though his allotment of the flat was cancelled earlier and he did so at his own risk. Subsequently the competent officer of the DDA in February, 1991 ordered for restoration of registration subject to payment of prescribed charges. Since the earlier allotted flat had already been re-allotted, it was ordered that a suitable alternative flat be given to the complainant on his turn as per new priority number. Accordingly the name of the complainant was included in the next draw held on 27.1.1992 and a demand-cum-allotment letter was issued of a flat at Kondli Gharoli on 24.2.1992. Since the complainant did not deposit the required amount for the second flat and also did not complete the formalities, the allotment of second flat at Kondli Gharoli was also cancelled. It has, therefore, been stated by the O.P. that the complainant was himself responsible for the cancellation of the allotment as he neither deposited the required amount or completed the formalities. It is also stated that in the allotment letter of the Rohini flat sufficient time was allowed to the complainant to deposit the price of the flat and it was also mentioned that if the required amount is not deposited by 1.8.1990 there is automatic cancellation of the allotment. The case of the O.P. is that since the amount was not deposited by 1.8.1990 the allotment was automatically cancelled and the subsequent request for extension of time was also rejected. Thus there was no deficiency on the part of the O.P. It is also stated by the O.P. that the complaint is time-barred as the allotment of the flat was cancelled on 1.8.1990 whereas the complaint has been filed in 1995. The O.P. also stated that even if the allotment of the Kondli Gharoli flat is taken into consideration for purpose of limitation the allotment of the Kondli Gharoli flat was cancelled on 27.5.1992 when the complainant failed to deposit the amount and to complete the formalities. Thus the complaint has been filed after more than two years of the cause of action i.e., the cancellation of allotment of the flat by the O.P. The O.P. also stated that the cost of the flat is determined on the basis of the rates prevailing at the time of the allotment and not at the time of registration. It has further been argued that huge amount is invested by the O.P. for the construction of the flats and public funds cannot be blocked for indefinite period as such after reasonable time the allotment stands automatically cancelled as has been done in this case. The O.P. further asserted that it is also open to the complainant to take back the registration amount with interest as per rules excluding the cancellation charges.

WE have heard both the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. It is not disputed that the complainant got himself registered for an LIG DDA flat in 1979 and in pursuance of a draw held in March, 1990 a flat in Rohini was allotted to the complainant and he was asked to deposit the full cost of the flat amounting to Rs. 95,054.16 by 1.8.1990. Since the complainant did not deposit the required amount by the fixed date, the allotment was automatically cancelled as per terms of the allotment letter. It is also not disputed that the request for extension of time by the complainant was rejected but subsequently his registration was restored on deposit of cancellation charges and he was made eligible for the second draw. Another flat was allotted to the complainant at Kondli Gharoli vide allotment letter dated 27.2.1992. Again the complainant failed to deposit the required amount of Rs. 1,94,900/- and hence the second allotment was also cancelled. The complainant had challenged cancellation of the first allotment of the Rohini flat on the ground that his request for extension of time has arbitrarily been rejected and he being a Government servant should have been allowed the extension of time as he had applied for house building loan and advance from GPF which has taken its usual time. It is to be noted that no distinction can be made between the common consumer and the consumer who is a Government servant. The complainant was allowed about three months'' time to deposit the required amount and it was specifically mentioned in the allotment letter that there will be automatic cancellation after 1.8.1990 if the amount is not deposited by this date. When the complainant failed to deposit the amount for whatever the reasons may be the O.P. had the right to cancel the allotment, which was automatic in case of non-compliance of the terms of the allotment letter. Thus the complainant himself was a defaulter and by cancelling the allotment the DDA cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service. It is relevant to note that on the request of the complainant his registration was restored by the competent officer and his name was ordered to be included in the next draw for allotment of a suitable flat. Even a flat was allotted as a result of the second draw in the name of the complainant at Kondli Gharoli and in that case also the complainant failed to complete the formalities and to deposit the amount and the second allotment was also cancelled. It is thus apparent that complainant himself was responsible for the default and there was no deficiency on the part of the O.P.-DDA. The complainant wanted a flat in Rohini on the price mentioned at the time of registration or at the most at the time of his allotment in 1990. This could not have been done since he failed to deposit the required amount by the date fixed. The complainant deposited the amount suo motu in the Bank after the cancellation of the allotment letter and this he has done at his own risk. Mere deposit of the amount does not confer a right to the complainant for allotment of a flat, the complainant did so at his own risk. The complainant also cannot be allowed to insist for a similar flat in Rohini only at the cost at which the earlier allotment was made. From the above facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that the complainant himself was responsible for the default in payment and for the cancellation of the allotment and the O.P.-DDA cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. It has been argued on behalf of the O.P. that the complaint is time-barred. The first allotment was cancelled on 1.8.1990 and the second allotment was cancelled on 27.5.1992. The complaint was filed on 18.4.1995 i.e., after more than two years of the cancellation of the second allotment. As per Section 24A(1) of the Act, a complaint can be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the instant case the complaint has been filed after more than two years of the cancellation of the second allotment and no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for this delay. He continued writing to the DDA several letters but that period cannot be included in the period allowed for filing the complaint under Section 24A of the Act. Hence in our view the complaint is also time-barred. In view of what we have stated above no deficiency in service is proved against the O.P.-DDA as the complainant has failed to prove that the cancellation of his allotment was arbitrary or without sufficient cause. Moreover, the complaint is also barred by limitation. Hence the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own cost.

THE above mentioned complaint stands disposed of in above terms. Complaint disposed of.