State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Pushpinder Kaur Rana on 21 September, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 21.09.2007 Appeal No. A-07/331 (Arising out of Order dated 06-02-2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area, New Delhi in Case No.959/2005) Delhi Development Authority Appellant Through its Director(H-II), Through Vikas Sadan, INA, Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, New Delhi. Advocate Versus Ms. Pushpinder Kaur Rana Respondent Respondent R/o B-15, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. Appeal No. A-07/162 (Arising out of Order dated 06-02-2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Case No.959/2005) Ms. Pushpinder Kaur Rana Appellant Respondent R/o B-15, Vishal Enclave, Through New Delhi. Mr. P.S. Girdhar, Advocate Versus Delhi Development Authority Respondent Through its Director(H-II), Through Vikas Sadan, INA, Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, New Delhi. Advocate CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. The aforesaid two appeals arise from the order dated 06.02.2007 whereby appellant-DDA has been held guilty for limited deficiency in service in not informing the complainant-respondent as to the payment made by her in respect of the cost of the flat to original allottee and took interest @ 7% on the amount deposited by her for the period 01.07.2002 to 31.10.2004 and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation whereas the complainant-appellant has been directed to pay interest @ 7% for the period from 01.07.2002 to 31.10.2004 as per policy of the allotment. Apparently, DDA is aggrieved of the amount of compensation and complainant-appellant is aggrieved of the interest to be paid by her for the aforesaid period.
2. For the purpose of convenience the DDA shall be referred as appellant and the complainant as respondent.
3. In order to appreciate the rival claims of the parties, relevant version of the parties need to be referred, in brief. Ms. Ravinder Kaur Rana, since deceased, booked an MIG flat with the appellant under the NPRS-1979Housing Scheme. She died on 4.4.95 and the husband of the deceased informed the appellant vide letter dated 23.6.95 and also requested the appellant to transfer the registration in his name. Nothing was done by the appellant despite respondent entering into correspondence with the appellant. Vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 26.12.01 31.12.01 the appellant allotted a flat in the name of the deceased registrant. Thereafter vide letter dated 24.1.02 the respondent herein for the first time sought the transfer of allotment in her name. In response to the letter dated 19.1.02 sent by the husband of the deceased the appellant vide letter dated 22.2.02 conveyed to him to submit the mutation papers as per the booklet available at the sale counter of the appellant. Thereafter the respondents father had made numerous rounds of the office of the appellant DDA seeking transfer of allotment in the name of the respondent and also change of mode of payment from hire purchase to cash down basis, but in vain. The respondent submitted the required document for mutation vide letter dated 21.5.04 and only vide letter dated 11.10.04 the transfer of allotment in the name of the respondent was conveyed to her. However, the appellant maintained a silence in respect of the request of the respondent for change of mode of payment. The respondent of her own volition paid the sum of Rs. 7,74,293/- on 12.1.05 to make up the total cost of Rs. 7,88,800/- and thereafter the appellant failed to issue the possession letter etc. and rather raised a demand for Rs. 2,72,071/- vide letter dated 8.4.05 as balance cost of the flat.
4. The decision taken by the appellant was that vide letter dated 01.4.2000 the husband of the deceased asked the respondent the procedure for mutation in his favour. This letter was replied to by the respondent vide letter dated 25.6.01 stating that he was required to submit the documents for mutation as per the booklet available at the counter of the respondent. However, no such papers were submitted by the respondent and on the basis of available records with the respondent, it sent an allotment-cum-demand letter dated 26.12.01-31.12.01 in the name of the original registrant. and No payment was made in terms of the allotment-cum-demand letter. Ultimately the appellant submitted incomplete documents vide letter dated 21.5.04. The respondent submitted affidavit and indemnity bond in respect of the lost FDR etc. and thereafter mutation of allotment in favour of the respondent was approved and conveyed to her vide letter dated 11.10.04. As to the additional demand raised it was stated that it was raised as per the policy.
Earlier the husband of the deceased claimed mutation in his name on the basis of a will. Later on the respondent herein claimed mutation in her name stating that no will had been left by the deceased.
5. As regards the policy of the DDA six months interest free period should have been given to the complainant and the interest should have been charged @ 7% and this was the decision taken by the Commissioner(Housing) of the appellant and it was in view of the decision that the demand was revised by the appellant to Rs. 2,72,071.60p payable by 30th September, 2005. The details of the demand made by the DDA as per policy were as under :
a) Actual service charges Rs. 21,337.00
(b) Ground rent Rs. 34,140.00
(c) File risk cover Rs. 3,026.00
(d) Other charges Rs.
1,200.00
(e) Lease Deed charges Rs.
17,900.00
(f) Interest from 30.1.02 to 30.4.05 Rs.1,92,468.00 ___________________ Total : Rs.2,72,071.60
6. After according careful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, the District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the demand by DDA as per allotment-cum-demand letter is minor one as the complainant was liable to give lease deed charges. So far as the interest amount was concerned, the District Forum held the DDA guilty for not informing the complainant of the charge of payment mode by cash down basis and conveyed it only in October, 2004 otherwise the complainant would have made the payment. Thus DDA was held guilty in this regard and to that extent.
7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case that the order of the District Forum is well reasoned and detailed one and having considered each and every aspect of the matter, we do not find any merit in both the appeals and dismiss the same.
8. DDA shall comply with the impugned order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
9. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
11. Announced on 21st day of September, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc