State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Om Prakash Gupta on 10 January, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 10.01.2012 Appeal No. FA-9/475 Delhi Development Authority Appellant Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi. Versus Shri Om Prakash Gupta Respondent S/o Late Tika Ram, R/o A-1/284 A, Lawrence Road, Delhi. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Ms. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral)
1. One Tika Ram deceased father of the complainant O.P. Gupta had booked a Janta Flat with the OP DDA.
He was assigned the priority number and on his turn the OP allotted him a flat in Rohini, Delhi vide allotment letter dated 24.07.91, sent at his address A-1/203 B, Lawrence Road,Delhi-110035. On 22.09.91 Tika Ram expired before he could make any payment and take the possession. According to the OP, the communication of the death of Tika Ram was supplied to the OP on 31.03.99, while way back in the year 1996 with issuance of a Public Notice, the DDA stopped allotting Janta flats. Against this Public Notice the complainant as a legal heir of Tika Ram had not filed any objection.
2. Thereafter the complainant made a representation for re-allotment of a flat to the OP, and the OP on 11.02.2000 allotted a flat in Kondli Gharoli, Delhi in the name of complainant which the complainant refused to accept and insisted upon for allotment of a flat in Rohini. The OP allotted the flat in June, 2005 to the complainant in Rohini, and according to Clause 2 of the policy of the OP dated 25.02.05, copy of which is available on the record, besides the price charged from the complainant interest @ 12% p.a. The complainant signed the possession slip and at that point of time, as alleged by the complainant, did not make any protest against the price amount Rs. 2,64,472/- which included the interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.07.91(date of allotment lette4r sent to original allottee Tika Ram) to 22.02.05(date of issuance of allotment letter in the name of the complainant with regard to flat of Rohini). Pursuant to it, the complainant paid the amount and took the possession on 28.06.06 ofo the flat from the OP.
3. The complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum on two grounds (i) the OP sho9uld have allotted the complainant a flat in Rohini rather than in Kondli Gharoli as it had allotted to his father Shri Tika Ram, and where Janta Flats were available and for consideration of Rs. 1,78,400/- on which flat at Rohini was allotted to ohis father and this amount also included interest from 24.07.91 when the original flat was allotted to Shri Tika Ram, (ii) the OP should not have charged from the complainant the interest, because it was the fault of OP DDA, because in its record the DDA had not changed the new address of Shri Tika Ram, which for Tika Ram had informed the OP vide DDA Diary No. 7178 dated 30.11.88 and vide its reminder Diary No. 6743 dated 06.06.89.
4. The complainant against the OP prayed that the DDA should charge for the Rohini flat allotted in the name of Shri Tika Ram.
The prayer of the complainant in the complaint was that the complainant should be given the flat at the original costs of Rs. 94,100/- without any additional costs i.e. Rs. 2,70,993/- and the OP be also directed to pay the complainant Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
5. The OP opposed the claim and filed the written statement pleading that the complainant has paid Rs. 2,70,993/- to the DDA persuant to Demand Letter dated 24.06.06 and has taken the possession of flat on 28.06.06. The OP alleged that as per the Policy dated 25.02.05 reiterated on 13.02.06, the complainant has been charged the original costs Rs. 94,100/- and interest @ 12% from 24.07.91 to 25.06.05. The OP alleged that the complainant informed on 31.03.99 about the death of Shri Tika Ram, while he expired on 22.09.91 i.e. after 8 years of his death. The policy of the OP nowhere provides that in case the original allottee dies, his heirs will be provided a flat in the same locality, in case his heirs apply for mutation of registration.
6. The District Consumer Forum decreeted the claim of the complainant and directed the OP to revise allotment-cum-demand letter dated 24.06.05 by charging interest @ 6.25% p.a. on the original cost and refund the excess deposit to the complainant within 45 days.
7. That is what brings the OP DDA in appeal before this Commission.
8. We have heard Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, counsel for the appellant and Shri P.P. Gupta, counsel for the respondent in this appeal.
9. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that the OP after mutation of registration in December 1999 allotted on 25.6.005 flat in the name of the complainant in Rohini when he refused to accept the flat also allotted to the complainant on 11.02.2000 in Kondli. On allotment of flat on the request of the complainant at old cost, the OP had charged from complainant interest @ 12% p.a. vide policy dated 25.02.05 reiterated on 13.02.06. These policies will apply in the case of the complainant for the reason because his allotment in Rohini was in 2005.
The counsel for appellant has contended that interest @ 6.25% p.a. has been added to be charged by Trial Forum adhering a decision of Delhi Court in case of Shanti Bhakti vs DDA, while the statutory interest provided under the Act and the Rules cannot be changed to a lesser rate.
10. As against it counsel for respondent has argued that after receipt of the demand letter dated 25.06.05, the respondent raised a protest on 17.11.05 that he is badly in need of accommodation and has no other alternative except to deposit the amount as per the demand letter, and then follow the case with reference to his earlier representations pending with the DDA, and thereafter deposited the amount. The counsel submitted that in cases where the DDA is at fault in not changing the address in spite of intimation as in the present case it was given by Shri Tika Ram on 30.11.88 vide Diary No. 7178 and on 06.06.89 vide Diary No. 6743, the OP could not charge the interest from the complainant. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the policy to charge interest @ 12% p.a. came in force on 25.02.05 while the flat was allotted in Kondli Gharoli in the name of the complainant himself in the year 2000.
11. It is undisputable that the deceased Tika Ram had intimated the appellant on 30.11.88 and 6.6.89 about his changed address and the intimation find entered in appellants diary, and therefore the contention of the appellant DDA that no intimation of the change of address was given to the DDA before the DDA stopped the allotment of Janta flats by publishing public notice in 1996 is eggregeously false. After the mutation of registration in the year 1999 it was not just and fair on the part of the appellant DDA to allot a flat to the complainant in the year 2000 in Kondli while vacant flats were available in Rohini where his father was also given the allotment. It is also clear from the record that the complainant deposited the price including the interest amount at a rate of 12% as demanded by the appellant DDA pursuant to demand & allotment letters for taking possession of flat in Rohini under compelling circumstances and after reserving his right to raise his objections by persuing his reservation pending since before. Following principle of equity justice and fair play in the peculiar circumstances of this case, as they are, as the flat in Rohini was allotted to him on his refusal to accept flat allotted to him in Kondli the appellant DDA should have been justified in allotting him the flat at Rohini at same price and interest if any as was to be paid by the complainant for the flat in Kondli.
12. For all these reasons we find that the appellant has been quite unfair and unjustified in charging the price and interest from the complainant as per his demand letter dated 25.6.2005 and the order of the Trial Forum calls for no interference, which is hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed. The appellant will pay the respondent complainant Rs. Ten Thousand as costs of this appeal within 30 days this order is received in the office of the appellant.
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member ysc