State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dda vs Chanchal Kr. on 3 November, 2015
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION (Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Argument: 03.11.2015 Date of Decision: 20.11.2015 First Appeal-265/2012 (Arising out of the order dated 24.10.2011 passed by the District Forum, Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi in complaint case 740/07) In the Matter of: Delhi Development Authority Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vikas Sadan INA, New Delhi ......Appellant Versus Chanchal Kumar S/o Late Shri Badri Nath R/o H037 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-15 .......Respondent CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) 1.
Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to order dated 24.10.2011 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II in complaint case no. 740/07. The facts recited in the impugned order are that in 1979 appellant/OP launched a scheme known as "New Pattern Reisdential Scheme 1979". The respondent/complainant applied for LIG flat and deposited Rs. 1,500/-. He changed his residential address from WZ-207, Virender Nagar, New Delhi-110018to H-37, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. He came to know that draw of lot was held on 08.10.1999 and he was allotted flat no. 121 Sector 14, Pocket-2, Phase-2, Dwarka. On enquiry it was revealed that allotment letter was sent at old address. The complainant had no knowledge about allotment of flat and did not pay the required amount and did not fulfil other terms and conditions. He gave a letter dated 24.04.2007 for issuance of allotment letter. According to him non sending of allotment letter at the correct address amounted to gross negligence and serious deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. As a result he was put to great loss besides mental tension and agony. He prayed for issue of allotment letter of the flat initially allotted to him. He also prayed for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for having been deprived of the flat since 1999 and causing inconvenience, mental agony and harassment. He also prayed for Rs. 55,00/- towards litigation costs.
2. OP contested the case by filing written statement. It admitted the registration of complainant and intimation about change of address. According to it the flat was allotted on cash down basis at disposal cost of Rs. 3,50,800/-. Demand letter dated 30.03.2000 and 13.04.2000 was sent to the complainant at his new address. The complainant failed to compy with the same. Show cause notice was sent to him on 16.05.2001 but to no use. The allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 11.01.2001. List of priority numbers who were allotted flats was released from time to time in Daily newspaper and the said list was displayed on the notice board of DDA in its office at INA. Representation dated 24.04.2007 was replied.
3. After completion of pleadings the District Forum observed that since material facts were admitted, there was no need of evidence. It came to the conclusion that burden of proving that allotment was sent at changed address squarely lay upon OP. Photocopy of the demand-cum-allotment letter filed by the OP shows that on the said letter old address was typed and subsequently the same was stuck of and new address was mentioned in hand writing. The same create doubt that the letter was not sent at the new address. The OP did not file postal receipt of sending the said letter.
4. The other objections of the OP was that complaint was time barred. The same has been discarded by the District Forum on the ground that when letter was not delivered at the correct address of the complainant, the OP could not take plea of limitation. It further held that sending of letter by post does not amount to proper delivery of letter.
5. Yet another plea of the OP was that the result was published in newspaper which was substantial notice to all concerned. It was incumbent on the complainant to collect letter from the office of OP.
6. Ultimately, the District Forum held OP guilty of grave deficiency in service and directed refund about Rs. 15,00/- + payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment caused to the complainant for not allotting the flat at the time of need.
6. In appeal the contention of the appellant is that no malice can be attributed to the appellant. The respondent was trying to take the benefit of his own wrong. No prudent person would wait for communication from appellant when notices were given in leading newspapers. There was no communication from respondent to appellant form 08.10.1999 to 24.04.2007. Merely cutting down address of the respondent on allotment letter does not create any doubt. The complaint was filed after lapse of seven years of cause of action and as per section 24 Consumer Protection Act the complaint could be filed within two years. The compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was without any basis.
7. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The counsel for the respondent relied upon decision of State Commission in first appeal No. 763/07 titled as DDA Vs. Jagdish Lal Arora decided on 28.05.2013. In that case the DDA has not sent the allotment letter at the new address and the dispute was regarding intimation of new address of the complainant. The facts are different. Here receipt of new address is admitted. The demand letter purports to have been issued at the new address.
8. Moreover, in view of decision of National Commission in DDA Vs. Sunil Bharti IV (2009) CPJ 88, decision cited by counsel for the respondent cannot be followed. The reason being that decision cited by counsel for the respondent is that of State Commission only. In P. Subbian Vs. Branch Manager, Canara Bank II (2001) CPJ 43 National Commission held that service by publication in a newspaper is valid.
9. It is a matter of common knowledge that result of draw of lots are published in all leading newspapers. The same has not been disputed by the respondent. The allottees keep a track on the result of draw.
10. Regarding limitation the observation of the District Forum that appellant cannot take plea of limitation, cannot be sustained. In appeal no. 183/07 titled as Ashok Kumar Saini Vs. DDA decided on 21.03.2013 it was held that limitation is from draw of lots and not from correspondence. In Harbhajan Sharma Vs. Hudda I (2015) CPJ 672 NC took a similar view. Not only this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 5852/2013 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. decided on 16.07.2013 dismiss a similar complaint as barred by limitation.
In view of the above discussion the impugned order cannot be sustained. Anyhow DDA is directed to refund Rs. 1,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of deposit till date of refund. The impugned order is modified to that effect.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs as per rules.
File be consigned to record room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial)