State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dda vs Mr. V.P. Dhall on 19 May, 2014
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 19.05.2014 First Appeal No. 10/431 (Arising from the order dated 29.04.2010 Passed by District Forum - II in Complaint Case No. 362/2009) Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi Appellant Vs Mr. V. P. Dhall S/o Late Smt. Kailashwati Dhali T-12/2, DLF City, Phase 3, Gurgaon. Ms. Kamlesh Ghai D/o Late Kailashwati Dhall F-10, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. .. Respondent Coram Salma Noor, Presiding Member
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)
1. This order shall dispose of the appeals bearing No. 9/757 and 10/431 both titled as DDA Vs. V. P. Dhall. Appeal No. 9/757 is directed against the impugned order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II (in short District Forum). The impugned order dated 27.08.2009 are reproduced below:
I hereby direct that the OP shall not pass any order on the basis of letter dated 2.7.09 till the disposal of this case.
2. Appeal No. 10/431 is directed against the orders dated 29.04.2010 passed by the District Forum and the operative portion of the same is reproduced below:
We hereby direct:-
i) the OP shall mutate the flat bearing No. 72-C, Block B-2, Lawrence Road, New Delhi in the name of the complainants and also issue a letter thereof.
ii) the OP shall issue a No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainants.
iii) the OP shall pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering inclusive of the litigation cost.
This shall be complied within 30 days.
3. Admitted facts of the case are that Smt. Kailashwati Dhall came to India from Pakistan at the time of partition of the country in 1947. She was allotted ARP quarter at Motia Khan, Delhi. Delhi Development Authority wanted to reconstruct the area of Motia Khan, Delhi and allotted alternative flats to all such occupants.
Accordingly, DDA issued a letter on 11.03.1986 and allotted flat No. B-2/72-C at Lawrence Road, New Delhi to her. NOCs for electricity and water connections were also issued. She was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.12,000/-. She deposited Rs.4,000/- on 05.10.1985 and Rs.8,000/- on 29.03.1986. Thus a total amount of Rs.12,000/- as token money/registration money for securing alternative allotment stood deposited by her. She was handed-over the physical possession of the flat on 25.03.1986. No demand-cum-allotment letter was however, issued. Smt. Kaikashwati Dhall died on 11.03.2006. Present appellants have stepped into her shoes as her legal heirs. Some such allottees had filed a writ petition in the Honble High Court of Delhi titled as Shri Bhanu Ram and Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. bearing No. CWP 3473/1987. The honble High Court passed following orders in the said writ petition:-
Needless to say, it will be open to the respondent DDA to issue appropriate letters to remaining petitioners also giving them the same offer, which has been made and accepted by petitioner No. 1 and 4 in the present case and in case the said offer is accepted by the remaining petitioners, the same principles have to be followed as directed by the present order. It is submitted that the complainants were always ready and willing to make the payment, if any due from the complaints. However, the file of the complainants has been roaming from one table to another in the office of the Opposite Party without rhyme and reason. Thus, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
4.
It is the admitted case of the parties that Smt. Kailashwati Dhall was not a party to the proceedings that took place in writ petition No. 3473/1987. In the above said writ petition CWP No. 3473/1987 vide an interim order dated 01.09.1989 the petitioners therein were directed to pay to DDA an amount of Rs.500/- per month to be adjusted against the hire-purchase charges and on there being defaulters, the entire balance amount was to become due and payable. It was also observed in the said order that the allottees were willing to deposit the balance amount of the cost within 60 days from that day i.e. 01.09.1989.
5. There is no dispute with the contention of the DDA that the allottees including Smt. Kailashwati Dhall were aware of the valuation of the flat which was Rs.1,05,916. The relevant letter written by DDA to Smt. Kailashwati Dhall is reproduced below:-
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AURHOTIY LAND AND HOUSE VALUATION CELL VALUATION CERTIFICATE No. F.960(46)91-VAL 3rd Floor, Block A Vikas Sadan, INA Colony, New Delhi 110 023 From: Deputy Director (Valuation) To Smt. Kailashwati Dhall, B 2/72-C, Lawrence Road, New Delhi Sub: Valuation of Property at B-2/72-C Lawrence Road, N.D. Madam, With reference to your request for valuation of above cited property, I am directed to inform you that the value assessed by this department as of 30.05.1992 is Rs.1,05,916/- (Rupees one lac five thousand nine hundred sixteen only).
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(D. P. Sumangal) Dy. Director (Valuation)
6. After the death of Smt. Kailashwati Dhall, the present appellants approached DDA for mutation of the flat in question in their names. They did not receive any response in writing. They finally filed a complaint in the District Forum seeking directions to DDA for effecting mutation in their names and also pay compensation for the harassment caused to them. It was during the pendency of the said complaint in the District Forum that the letter dated 02.07.2009 was issued by DDA to Shri V. P. Dhall (the present appellants). The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below:
Sub: Allotment of MIG flat No. 72-C, B-2,l Lawrence Road in lieu of ARP Qtrs of Motia Khan.
Sir/Madam, With reference to your letter dated 12.2.2009 on the above noted subject I am directed to inform you that on the basis of documents submitted by you, the mutation has been allowed in your favour subject to payment of cost of flat and other charges as detailed as under:
Cost of Flat:
Rs.
15,24,300=00 Land Premium Rs.
16,11,400=00 Total Rs.
31,35,700=00 Amount already deposited (-) Rs.
12,000=00 Interest on Registration money (-) Rs.
14,003=00 Service Charges (+) Rs.
1,18,800=00 Documentation Charges (+) Rs.
75=00 ________________________________________ Net Payable Rs.
32,28,572=00 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (Rupees thirty two lac twenty eight thousand five hundred seventy two only) You are requested to deposit sum of Rs.32,28,572/- (Rupees thirty two lac twenty eight thousand five hundred seventy two only) within one month from the date of issue of this letter failing which necessary action will be initiated under the Terms and Conditions of allotment. Please note that this cost is valid upto 30.09.2009. Please also note that Ground rent will also be intimated after deposit of above said amount.
- Sd/- Dy. Director (LAB) Housing 7. Present
appeal against the orders of the District Forum dated 29.04.2010 is filed on the grounds that the allottee did not deposit the valuation of the flat which was Rs.1,05,916/- The allottee was required to deposit the amount of Rs.32,28,572/- as demanded by the Appellant/DDA vide letter dated 02.07.2009. Plea was also taken that the District Forum did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the matter as the value of the flat was above Rs.20 lakhs.
8.
Now the question arises as to whether the original allottee or her successors in interest were defaulters in making the payment of the valuation of the flat which was Rs.1,05,916/-. Second question with which we are confronted with is as to whether the successors-in-interest of Smt. Kailashwati Dhall (present appellants) were liable to pay to DDA the amount of Rs.32,28,572/- as demanded vide letter dated 02.07.2009.
9. Appellant/DDA has not placed on record any letter prior to 02.07.2009 demanding any amount either from Smt. Kailashwati Dhall or her successors-in-interest. An un-dated letter showing the value of the flat as on 30.05.1992 as Rs.1,05,916/- (reproduced above) simply informs Smt. Kailashwati Dhall, the valuation of the property. It was written to her in response to her request in this behalf. The letter does not disclose whether she was required to deposit the aforesaid amount in one shot or in installments. It also does not disclose the time schedule for payment. No action whatsoever was taken by DDA against the original allottee. At the cost of repetition, it is mentioned here that Smt. Kailashwati Dhall or her successors-in-interest were not party to the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 3473/1987. Even after the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the said Writ Petition on 11.09.2003, the complainants have been writing to DDA to receive from them the outstanding dues in lump sum alongwith interest w.e.f. 11.09.2003. Copy of the letter dated 19.06.2006 written by the complainants has been placed on record. Another such letter is dated 06.09.2006 written to the Director (Housing), DDA. DDA did not reply to either of these letters. All of a sudden during the pendency of the complaint in the District Forum, DDA comes up with a letter dated 02.07.2009 calling upon the complainants to pay an amount of Rs.32,28,572/- within one month. There is no dispute with the proposition that the Honble High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 3473/1987 had placed all such allottees at par with the allottees who were party to the writ petition. No presumption can be drawn against the present complainants that they had the knowledge of the pendency of the writ petition proceedings. It was the duty of DDA to inform all allottees and ask them to make payments in terms of the Honble High Courts Orders. It is not the case of the DDA that they ever informed the present complainants of the Honble High Courts Orders or to make payments in pursuance to the said orders. A subsequent demand made vide letter 02.07.2009 was, therefore, illegal, unjustified and not sustainable in the eyes of law. As discussed above, the complainants had been approaching DDA and requesting them to receive payments from them.
10. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that the DDA was entitled to the value of the flat of Rs.1,05,916 after adjusting the amount of Rs.12,000/- as initially paid by Smt. Kailashwati Dhall. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Orders of the District Forum are modified with the following directions:
i) The appellant/DDA shall mutate flat No.72-C Block B-2, Lawrence Road, New Delhi in the name of the complainants/respondents within a period of 15 days after an amount of Rs.93,916 (Rs.1,05,916 Rs.12,000) is paid by them to DDA within a period of 15 days from today.
ii) DDA shall issue a No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainants/respondents immediately after carrying out the mutation.
iii) DDA shall pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants for mental agony and harassment within 30 days failing which interest @ 18% p.a. shall be payable.
11. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
(Salma Noor) Presiding Member (N P Kaushik) Member (Judicial) Vats