State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K.K Kurain vs The Delhi Devloment Authority on 7 July, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments:07.07.17 Date of Decision: 11.07.17 First Appeal No. 281/2017 In the matter of: Shri K.K.Kurian A-87, Nehru Gali, Mandawali Extn., Delhi-110092 ......Appellant Versus The Delhi Development Authority Through: Vice-Chairman Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi-110023. .....Respondent C ORAM Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member 1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes SHRI O.P.GUPTA JUDGEMENT
The present appeal is against order dated 22.03.17 passed by District Forum vide which complaint has been dismissed. The facts which can be gathered from impugned order are that initially the flat was allotted to one Ashok Kumar in 1986 who deposited Rs. 5466.49 and remaining amount was to be paid in installments. He sold the flat to Smt. Sushma Goyal on 28.03.88 by GPA etc. In turn Smt. Sushma Goyal further sold the flat to Shri B.D.Rai on 12.04.89 who further sold the same to the complainant.
2. Dispute is regarding non-conversion of the flat from lease hold to free hold on the application moved by the complainant. On 02.04.08 the complainant was shown a corrigendum dated 01.08.88 demanding Rs. 1500/- towards cost. The OP calculated amount of Rs. 12534/- with exhorbitant compound interest plus Rs. 1000/- as charges vide letter of Lease Administration Branch(Housing) dated 19.06.08. Complainant protested. According to him charging of compound interest was against order of Supreme Court and National Commission. On further inquiry it was revealed by Accounts Branch that Rs. 1500/- concession was given to SC/ST allotees in initial payment but was demanded after 2 years of allotment. A note was put up on advise of Accounts Branch to issue corrigendum letter to SC/ST allottees saying that it was less demanded and charged it as cost. The complainant deposited Rs. 12534/- under protest on 18.08.08. His RTI application was not attended properly. He was informed that being a very old case, proof of deliery of corrigendum letter dated 01.08.88 was not available in the record.
3. The complainant prayed for declaring undisclosed and unsolicited secret demand of hidden cost by withdrawing concession granted to SC/ST as illegal, unfair trade practice and against constitutional right of SC/ST allottee. He further prayed for refund of Rs. 12534/- by him under protest. He also prayed for compensation for unnecessary delay in conversion.
4. The respondent OP filed WS pleading that complainant was not a consumer as he did not hire any service, the immovable property could not be purchased by mere power of attorney or agreement to sell. Balance initial deposit amountof Rs. 1500/-was already demanded from the original allottee Ashok Kumar vide letter dated 01.08.88 . Charging of interest as per office order dated 22.04.02 and balance cost was policy matter. Both the parties filed evidence by affidavit and written arguments.
5. After going through the material on record the District Forum found that amount of Rs. 12,534/- was deposited in the name of Ashok Kumar and not in the name of complainant. Thus complainant had not been reconsidered as allottee/subsequent allottee in the record of OP. The complainant had not entered into the shoes of the original allotte Ashok Kumar. The District Forum also found that plea of pick and choose policy allegedly adopted by OP could not be decided in the summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act. It also has held that after taking possession of the flat, one does not remain a consumer as per decision of this Commission in CC 393/10 titled as Shiv Narayan Gupta vs. DDA decided on 17.08.16. Hence the complaint was dismissed.
6. We have gone through the material on record and heard apellant for the purpose of admission. The law is that agent must sue in the name of principal and not in his own name. In the instant case the appellant is at the most agent and case filed by him in his own name is not maintainable.
7. Moreover the findings of the District Forum that after taking possession one does not remain consumer is supported by decision of National Commission in Smita Roy vs. Excel Construction II 2012 CPJ 204 and Harpal Arya vs. Housing Board Haryana II (2016) CPJ 36.
8. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Appeal is dismissed in limini.
One copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)