State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dda vs Sushil Bansal on 24 January, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 24.01.2017 First Appeal No. 733/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 26.04.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 1101/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI 'M' Block Ist Floor VikasBhawanI.P.Estate New Delhi-110001) In the matter of: Delhi Development Authority VikasSadan, INA New Delhi .........Appellant Versus Mrs. SushilBansal W/o Sh. R.N.Bansal R/o C-2/2252, VasantKunj New Delhi ..........Respondent CORAM N P KAUSHIK - Member (Judicial) 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes N P KAUSHIK - MEMBER (JUDICIAL) JUDGEMENT
Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum VI VikasBhawan New Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum passed the following directions against the OP/appellant herein i.e. DDA.
a) to apply the same formula as in the case of plot No. 50, PaschimiMarg, on proportional area basis.
b) apply the rates of conversion applicable in 2010. c) return the balance money to complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., from date of deposit till repayment. d) we direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency of differential treatment and harassment to her. e) to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges.
Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their original status in the complaint.
Complainant Smt.SushilBansal has1/4th undivided share in the plot bearing No. D-7 VasantVihar New Delhi. The said plot was transferred in favour of 4 allotees named Sh. V.V.Vohra, Sh. R.S.Gupta, Sh. K.L.Arora and Sh. R.N.Bansal. It may be mentioned here that Sh. R.N.Bansal happens to be the husband of Smt. SushilBansal. Name of the complainant was substituted in place of the name of Sh. R.N.Bansal which is not in dispute. In April 2010, the complainant Smt. SushilBansal moved an application in the office of the OP i.e. DDA for conversion of the perpetual sub-lease of an undivided share into freehold. She did not hear anything from the OP. She filed a consumer complaint in District Forum VI in August 2010. During the course of proceedings, Ld. District Forum passed the orders which is reproduced below:
"17.05.2012 Present Complainant and Pradeep dealing Asstt.of Society. Dept. has placed a letter of conversion charges Rs. 1,57,879/- plus 200 processing fee, has been intimated to the complainant by D.D.A which was disputed by the complainant earlier. A letter 11/7/11 has been also placed by the complainant as he had revised earlier before new rate, kept on revised. Fix up further proceedings on 3/9/12."
Perusal of the abovesaid orders shows that the OP was directed to accept the conversion charges of Rs. 1,57,879/- from the complainant and convert the share of the complainant from leasehold to freehold.
Grievance of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum was that she was given a differential treatment as in the case of plot No. 50 PashchimiMargVasantVihar Delhi only 1/6thof the plot area was taken into account while making calculations of conversion charges. On the contrary, in her case whole of the area of plot No. 7/7 VasantVihar New Delhi was taken into account on the grounds that the subdivision of the plot was not allowed in any circumstances and the plot was to remain as one unit.
Second grievance of the complainant in the District Forum was that she had applied for the conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold in April 2010 whereas the OP took into account the rate of conversion charges applicable after the enhanced rates were announced on 12.08.2011.In other words, the complainant wanted the conversion charges to be charged from her as per rates prevailing in April 2010.
Coming to the first controversy, representatives of the OP named Sh. Jagdish Grover Asstt. Director and Sh. U.S.NegiAsstt. Section Officer have placed before me the records pertaining to plot D-7/7 VasantVihar New Delhi. OP has relied upon the condition in the sublease which reads as under:
"The allotment of the plot No. D-7/7, VasantVihar in Govt. Servant CHBS Ltd. has been made in the joint names of the members of the Society as mentioned in the sub-lease. Sub division of the plot will not be allowed in any circumstances and the plot will remain as one unit"
Now we are confronted with the question, what was the purpose of allowing subdivision in a particular plot and not allowing the same in another plot. The answer lies in the proposition that the nature of certain plots does not permit such division for several reasons. One such reason could be a common gate and common spaces within the plot. Allowing subdivision would create slums and disputes amongst its occupants. In other words, such divisions are the divisions to be actually made on the land. In case of calculations, for the purpose of conversion charges, no such subdivision is actually required to be made on the land. This subdivision for the purpose of calculation is only a notional partition of the property for making arithmetical calculations of the conversion charges.
Charging conversion charges without making the notional partition of the property would amount to taxing allallotees/occupants with the charges meant for the whole of the plot instead of taking into account one's own share. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the OP fell in error in not partitioning the plot notionally in respect of each allotee while making such calculations. Clearly, in the case of 50 PashchimiMarg,the plot area was subdivided notionally as well, in the very beginning for making reasonable calculations. Complainant should not have been given a discriminatory treatment for this purpose.
Now coming to applying the rates of conversion charges to the case in hand, admittedly complainant moved her application in April 2010. Delay, if any, in demanding conversion charges from her was on the part of the OP i.e. DDA. Complainant herself was not responsible for any delay. She could not be burdened with enhanced rates as the same came into effectw.e.f. 12.08.2011 only. For the abovesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. Trial Forum rightly allowed the complaint. Appeal, therefore, is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
(N P KAUSHIK) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)