State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Kumar vs The Commissioner (Housing Lig) Dda & Anr on 8 November, 2017
Daily Order N THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 08.11.2017 First Appeal No.337/2017 (Arising out of the order dated 15.05.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.45/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (II), New Delhi) Shri Raj Kumer, S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal, R/o b-21, Maa Kripa Nagar, Gokulpura Jhotwara, Jaipur Rajasthan. ...Appellant Versus The Commissioner (Housing LIG) Delhi Development Authority, A-Block, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi The Asstt. Director, LIF (Housing) Delhi Development Authority, D-Block, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. ....Respondents CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against order dated 15.05.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi (in short "District Forum") in CC No.45/2012, whereby the aforesaid complaint has been dismissed.
Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are that the appellant herein i.e. the complainant before District Forum had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Act alleging therein that his mother Smt. Lakshmi Devi had applied for LIG Flat under NPRS scheme and had paid the requisite fee and the registration No. of the application was 23649 and priority No. was 41131. It was alleged that before draw of the flat, family of the appellant/complainant changed their address from A/129, Qutern Line Kingsway Camp, Delhi (Sic) to B-108, Nehru Vihar, Near Timarpur, Delhi. It was alleged that on 07.02.1986, the mother of the appellant/complainant had informed the change of address in writing to respondent/OP. It is stated that his mother had died before the draw. After the death, legal heirs of Late Smt. Lakshmi Devi remained in touch with the respondent/OP to verify about the draw from time to time. It was alleged that after coming to know about draw from a reliable source, the appellant/complainant contacted the respondent/OP to know about the status of the application of her mother. It was alleged that office of the respondent/OP admitted that a LIG flat No.429, 3rd Floor, Sector-14, Pocket -I, Phase-II, Dwarka, New Delhi had been allotted to his mother in the draw of lot held on 28.03.2003. It was alleged that appellant/complainant was further informed that a demand cum allotment letter was issued at their previous address at A/129, Qutern Line Kingsway Camp, Delhi (Sic). It was also informed that the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 11.03.2004 on account of non-response from the allottee side and the said flat was allotted to the next wait list registrant. Thereupon, the appellant/complainant wrote two letters to respondent/OP, However, respondent/OP sent a letter for submission of mutation documents for refund of registration money. It was alleged that office of the respondent/OP accepted the deficiency on its part as intimation of new address of the appellant/complainant was not recorded in the computer system. Appellant/complainant had further alleged that due act committed by the respondent/OP, the appellant/complainant has suffered a lot. A legal notice dated 04.11.2011 was also sent to respondent/OP but no response was received. Ultimately, the aforesaid complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking directions to respondent/OP for allotment of flat in the same location and value to the appellant/complainant. Appellant/complainant had also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
Respondent/OP had contested the complaint by filing written statement alleging therein that the complaint was barred under Section 24A of the Act. It was alleged that NPRS scheme under which mother of the appellant/complainant had got herself registered had been closed after giving due notice in the newspapers. It was alleged that change of address was never intimated to the respondent/OP and no letter dated 07.02.1986 as alleged was received by the respondent/OP. However, it was admitted that mother of the appellant/complainant had booked a flat as has been alleged and was allotted a flat details of which have been given in the complaint. It was alleged that result of draw dated 28.03.2003 was published in the newspapers and same was also displayed on the notice board. It was alleged that demand cum allotment letter was sent to the mother of the appellant/complainant at the address available on the record number of times. It was alleged that the same was cancelled due to non-payment of the demanded amount. The cancellation letter dated 11.03.2004 was also sent to Smt. Lakshmi Devi i.e. mother of appellant/complainant with the request to apply for refund of money but the said letter was also returned. It was alleged that a press note was also published in this regard. It was alleged that the legal heirs of Smt. Lakshmi Devi did not apply for mutation till cancellation. It was alleged that Shri P.C. Verma another son of the deceased vide letter dated 06.05.2005 submitted that his mother had applied for a flat and was also allotted a flat. He had also alleged that change of address was also intimated on 03.02.1986, however, he did not file any documents in this regard. Even after sending reminder, no proof was furnished. It was alleged that said Shri P.C. Verma also appeared in public hearing on 13.06.2007 but did not submit the requisite documents. The appellant/complainant i.e. another son of Smt. Lakshmi Devi vide letter dated 13.02.2007 submitted the documents for mutation. In response to his letter, respondent/OP vide letter dated 03.08.2007 asked the appellant/complainant to submit original documents of registration but he did not submit the said documents. Thereupon, another son of the deceased, namely, Shri P.C. Verma vide letter dated 29.07.2008 requested for restoration of the flat. The same was examined and rejected by the competent authority. It was alleged that neither Shri P.C. Verma nor appellant/complainant submitted documents for mutation. Respondent/OP prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both the parties led evidence in the form of affidavits and filed relevant documents. Parties also filed written arguments.
After hearing the parties, ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by holding that the same was time barred. Ld. District Forum also held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
Ld. counsel for the appellant/complainant has contended that cause of action in the present case was continuing one and the same is still continuing as the respondent/OP had lastly issued letter dated 26.07.2011 by which it had asked the appellant/complainant to submit the requisite documents. It is contended that thereupon a legal notice was also sent by the appellant/complainant and as such the complaint is not time barred and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP as his brother was also making requests to the respondent/OP for making fresh allotment of flat and his request was also not considered. It is contended that earlier demand cum allotment letter was sent at wrong address despite the correct address being sent to the respondent/OP. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on their part.
We have heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant and have perused the material on record.
It is admitted fact that the mother of the appellant/complainant had booked a flat with the respondent/OP under NPRS Scheme in the year 1986. There is a letter on record that the mother of the appellant/complainant had intimated the change of address to the respondent/OP vide letter dated 07.02.1986 (Exb. C/3). It is admitted position that as per stand of the respondent/OP the mother of the appellant/complainant was held successful in the computerized draw held on 28.03.2003, and was allotted a LIG Flat details of which have been given above. The mother of the appellant/complainant died before draw. As per own case of the appellant/complainant they had come to know about the draw of lot in the year 2003 by visiting the office of respondent/OP, however, no date has been mentioned as to when they had come to know about the draw. As per the material on record, on 06.05.2005 brother of the appellant/complainant, Shri P.C. Verma had written to the respondent/OP that they have come to know about the draw and a request was also made for re-allotment. Thereupon, respondent/OP had written a letter dated 06.06.2005 (Exb. RW 1/9) to Shri P.C. Verma for submission of necessary documents for transfer of registration in his name.
Perusal of the records shows that on 27.11.2006 the respondent/OP had requested Shri P.C. Verma brother of the appellant to submit the mutation documents as per mutation booklet. Brother of the appellant/complainant, Shri P.C. Verma was pursuing the matter with the respondent/OP and finally Shri P.C. Verma was informed on 02.09.2008 by the respondent/OP that his request for restoration of the flat has been rejected and was asked to submit the documents for refund of registration money. The aforesaid letter reads as under:
"Your request for restoration of above flat examined by the competent authority but regretted. You are advise to submit documents for refund purpose of registration money as already demanded vide this office letter 3.9.07.:
Reading the above letter, it is clear that request of the restoration of the flat had been rejected on 02.09.2008, thus, the cause of action has arisen on the aforesaid date. The complaint has been filed by another legal heir of deceased, Shri Raj Kumer brother of Shri P.C. Verma in the year 2012. The legal notice dated 04.11.2011 does not extended the period of limitation. Even the correspondence on record after cancellation has been for mutation for the refund purpose only. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The complaint has been rightly dismissed on the point of limitation. The appeal stands dismissed in limine.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member