National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dda vs Sunil Bharti on 13 August, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 800 OF 2009 (From the order dated 11.07.08 in Appeal No. FA 837/2006 of the State Commission, DELHI) DDA ... Petitioner (s) Through its Director (H-II) Vikas Sadan INA New Delhi Vs. SUNIL BHARTI ... Respondent (s) House No. B-70 Gali Dak Khane Wali Shakarpur Delhi BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MS. MANIKA TRIPATHI PANDEY, ADVOCATE For the Respondent : MR. K.R. BHARTI, ADVOCATE Dated : 13th August, 2009 ORDER
JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent on admission.
Registry has reported 121 days of delay in filing this revision petition by the petitioner for which a petition for condonation of delay has been filed. The reasons assigned therein are that after the certified copy of the impugned order was received on 17.09.2008, the file had to be processed at different levels by the Department of Delhi Development Authority and eventually a decision was taken to file a revision assailing the order of the State Commission. We are not oblivious that laxity on part of an applicant in taking recourse to the legal remedy cannot be overlooked but we are of the view that in case of a Government organization where the matter has to be examined at various levels, considerable time is obviously lost. Added to this, since we find that there is merit in the case of the petitioner which we shall discuss, we condone the delay.
On a hire purchase basis, a LIG Flat was allotted to the respondent in the draw held on 11.02.2000 and a Demand-cum-Allotment letter was sent to him by the petitioner herein at the address furnished by him in his application. The said communication was, however, received back undelivered with an endorsement incomplete address made by the courier services. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued by the DDA in Navbharat Times on 20.02.2001 informing all the allotees who had failed to respond to the allotment letter to do the needful in the matter within 15 days of the publication, failing which allotment was to stand cancelled. As the respondent failed to respond to the publication of the notice in the newspaper, allotment was cancelled.
After lapse of a good deal of time, petitioner took recourse to Consumer Grievance Redressal Agency and filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum which directed re-allotment of alternative plot under the same scheme, at the same cost and also on the same terms and conditions as contained in Demand-cum-Allotment Letter. It also awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
After an appeal was preferred before the State Commission that too affirmed the finding of the District Forum and it is how that the petitioner is in revision before us.
The dispute had arisen due to non-receipt of the allotment letter by the respondent which is shown to have been returned undelivered by the courier services for want of complete address. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that while communication made by the petitioner authority about cancellation of the allotment of flat was received by the respondent on the same address furnished in his application, it is intriguing to find that the allotment letter if issued on the same address would return undelivered for want of complete address. We could have accepted such submission made on behalf of the respondent but beyond this, we find that the petitioner authority cannot be blamed for non-communication to the respondent, as a notice calling upon all the allotees who had failed to respond to the allotment letter had been published in a newspaper and in the event of failure to respond, the allotment made was to stand cancelled. Since publication of notice in the newspaper could not be validly disputed, a lame excuse put forward on behalf of the respondent was that since the respondent was an illiterate person he could not get information through the newspaper. We are afraid that such a lame excuse can defend his case against the petitioner.
Even if we assume that the courier services were managed to submit a fake report about non-delivery of the communication made by the petitioner, publication of notice in the newspaper was a last nail in the coffin. Added to this, we further find that the respondents case altogether stands on a different footing which fails to impress us. Even though notice was published in the newspaper on 20.02.2001 and cancellation of allotment was communicated to the respondent on 21.08.2002 which was duly received by him, the respondent chose to sleep over the matter instead of agitating the issue before the concerned authority. The bald submission made on behalf of the respondent that he had been running from pillar to post making enquiries about status of his case before the petitioner authority, but no due information was provided to him, in the absence of any document evidencing such a ground, we do not feel persuaded to accept the submission. That apart, it was only after about 2 years of the communication of cancellation that complaint came to be filed by the respondent before the District Forum. Least said is better about lack of sincerity and inactivity of the respondent.
In background of these events, we allow the revision reversing the finding recorded by the State Commission.
However, there would be no order as to cost.
..J (B.N.P.SINGH) (PRESIDING MEMBER) .
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Dd/14