State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shreepat Rao Kamde vs Vice Chairman Dda on 13 March, 2024
FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution : 24.06.2017
Date of Reserving the order : 09.10.2023
Date of Decision : 13.03.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO.-343/2017
IN THE MATTER OF
Mr Shreepat Rao Kamde
B-132, Mansarover Garden,
New Delhi
.....Appellant
VERSUS
Vice Chairman DDA,
Vikas Sadan
INA, New Delhi
.....Respondent
(Through: Ms Mansi Bajaj, Advocate )
CORAM:
HON'BLE SH. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes
Allowed PAGE 1 OF 15
FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024
Present: Appellant in person
Ms Aarti Bansal, counsel for the respondent
HON'BLE MS.BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
ORDER
1. By this judgment we shall dispose of the appeal which has been filed by the appellant/complainant Shreepat Rao Kamde under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the impugned order dated 5th May 2017 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22&23, Qutub Institutional Area, Behind Qutub Hotel New Delhi in a complaint case no.312/2014.
2. Brief facts as alleged in the complainant are that the complainant applied for conversion of his flat bearing no. L-259 Sarita Vihar New Delhi from leasehold to freehold and paid one time conversion charges of Rs.16,667/- and processing fee of Rs.200/- total amounting to Rs.16867/- as per the scheme of the respondent. The freehold application No.6488, completed in all respects, was filed by him on 24.12.1999 with all the necessary documents. But, the opposite party neither issued Conveyance Deed papers nor gave any response within 90 days, despite his personal visits to Director and Deputy Director (LAB) of opposite party. As there was no mention of the ground rent in the allotment letter dated 05.09.1990, which was to be paid after two years, the Complainant wrote two letters dated 29.11.99 and 16.12.99 regarding exact amount to be deposited towards ground rent and interest on ground rent of the said flat. The complainant did not receive any reply to those letters till date. He deposited Rs.3,000/- towards ground rent and interest through challan No. 189403 on 17.12.1999 in SBI, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. He received a letter No. 127 (201)87/SFS/SVII/426 dated Allowed PAGE 2 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 01.09.2000 regarding acceptance of his freehold conversion application. The opposite party also demanded recoverable dues of Rs.8,332/- out of which Rs.5670/- towards service charges, Rs.986/- towards retention money and Rs.1676/- towards ground rent. But the opposite party did not give any relevant rules and the basis under which the recoverable dues were to be paid. He sent letters on 21.09.2000, 18.06.01 and 03.10.01 requesting them to give break up and the details of the dues but no information was provided by the opposite party till date. He had taken the possession of flat on 04.03.1991 and already paid Rs.420/- towards service charges before taking possession. After taking possession, he is continuously paying property tax @ Rs.5260/- per year to the MCD.
3. The opposite party has not mentioned the exact date on which the opposite party had handed over the services of the locality to MCD. Complainant contacted the Dy. Director (LABH) on 03.09.12 during public hearing and explained his problem regarding conversion application No.6488. On 29.10.12, he contacted Assistant Director (LABH) regarding freehold conversion. The Assistant Director suggested him to write a letter for issuance of conveyance deed papers. On 29.01.13 he registered a case in Samasya Nidan Sewa with opposite party. He was given in writing to attend the office on 11.02.13 at 11 hrs to resolve his freehold case. He visited the opposite party office on 11.02.13 and showed the registration slip to the staff but nobody wanted to entertain him on the basis of registration slip. Before leaving the opposite party office, he submitted a letter to the opposite party vide diary No.4831 dated 11.02.13 to prove his presence and also requested to issue conveyance deed papers. The opposite party replied but it was not clear as to what exactly the opposite party wanted from him.
Allowed PAGE 3 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024
4. It is the further case of the complainant that on 17.02.2014 he contacted the DD (LABH) during special camp, organized by the opposite party for freehold case. As per officer's advice, the complainant collected old conveyance deed papers from the Collector and submitted to the opposite party on 04.03.14 under receipt No.REC/H/14/5798 dated 04.03.14 but no reply was received from the opposite party till date. Since, the opposite party's order No.127(201)/87/SFS/SV/II/1426 dated 01.09.2000 was not cancelled. the opposite party did not issue fresh conveyance deed papers and neither informed the reasons nor gave any reply. He also met Sh. Surinder Kr., Dy. Director (LABH) on 17.04.14 and explained his problem. He was also present on 29.04.14 in the opposite party's facilitation centre at Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. He was allotted token No.215. He contacted Dy. Director and the Asstt. Director of the opposite party and explained his case. Despite of long waiting on that day the conveyance deed was not issued. He wrote letters to the Director (LABH) on 29.05.14 and 30.05.14 requesting them to issue the conveyance deed but no reply was received till date. On 09.07.14, he attended the special camp for leasehold to freehold at Vikas Bhawan, INA and was allotted token No.39. He was advised to contact Sh. Surinder Kumar, Dy. Director of opposite party and to explain his case and remind him about the earlier special camp. But, the opposite party's Dy. Director failed to issue conveyance paper despite his repeated visits. He sent a representation to the Vice- Chairman of opposite party on 17.02.14 but no reply was received from the opposite party. Thereafter, the complaint filed the complaint and prayed for the following reliefs:-
i. Direct the opposite party to convert DDA flat No.L-259, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi from leasehold to freehold, Allowed PAGE 4 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 ii. Direct the opposite party to set aside the illegal demand of Rs.8332, iii. Direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- towards physical and mental agony during last 14 years of pursuing matter and inordinate delay of freehold conversion, iv. Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the costs.
5. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24
(a) of the Consumer Protection Act'. The complainant got himself registered under VIth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1985 for category-II vide application No.03762 dated 23.07.1985. He was allotted flat No.L-259, Category-II, IInd floor, Sarita Vihar and demand against 5th and final installment was issued to him on 05.09.1990. There was condition for cancellation of the allotment, if the payment was not made within 4 months. The demand included ground rent for the first two years @ Re 1/-. It was made clear in the demand letter that he shall be liable to pay rent for the land @ Re 1/- per annum for the first two years in advance and thereafter @ Re 2.5% of the premium of the land in respect of the flat. This rate was subject to revision after 30 years. The amount was to be payable in advance every year to the opposite party and no demand letter would be issued for that purpose. Interest @ 10% per annum or such other rate as may be decided by the opposite party from time to time would be charged for the delay in payment of ground rent. After completing the formalities the possession letter was issued on 13.11.90. He deposited ground rent vide challan No. 189403 dated 17.12.99 for Rs.3000/- The complainant applied for conversion of the Allowed PAGE 5 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 aforesaid flat into freehold vide application No.06488 dated 24.12.99. The conversion application was accepted and he was issued four copies of unsigned conveyance deed form with a request to return 3 copies of conveyance deed, duly stamped by the Collector of Stamp within 45 days. It was clarified in the letter dated 01.09.2000 that if the form of the conveyance deed was not returned within the stipulated period it would be presumed that he was not interested in conversion of leasehold to freehold of the above mentioned flat. The complainant did not turn up, inspite of letters dated 29.06.01, 14.05.04 and 09.03.05 issued by the opposite party. The complainant filed an application dated 03.09.12 under RTI Act which was replied vide letter dated 11.09.2012. A show cause notice dated 16.01.13 was issued to the complainant requiring him to submit the demanded documents within 15 days otherwise the conversion application would be cancelled. Instead of complying with the directions contained in the previous letters, he wrote a letter dated 29.01.13 stating therein that he was not able to understand the exact requirement of the papers. He again submitted a letter dated 11.02.2013 stating therein that he did not receive conveyance deed papers. However, the complainant submitted conveyance deed papers (unstamped) on 04.03.14, which were issued to him on 01.09.2000. To verify the occupancy of aforesaid flat, Site Inspection Report was called which could not be completed on 23.04.14 as the tenant was only present and during telephonic conversation the complainant stated that he had already submitted all the documents to the opposite party. To verify the occupancy of aforesaid flat, the site inspection was done on 16.07.14, 23.07.14, 06.08.14 and 12.08.14 but the flat could not be inspected as the flat was found locked on the dates of inspection. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party Allowed PAGE 6 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 is a statutory body and acts in accordance with the statute/as per procedure of the law. The opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant filed the rejoined to the written statement and controverted all the averments made in the written statement.
7. Both the parties had also filed their evidence by way of affidavit as well as the written synopsis.
8. After hearing counsel for the parties the District Forum passed the following order:
Copy of the Scheme of Conversion from Leasehold System into freehold is Ex. OPW1/1. It is held in Gurshaney's case (supra) that the OP/DDA being a creature of statue, policy decisions or guidelines formulated by it, have a binding effect on its transferees of land and their assignees in the absence of rules to the contrary. The complainant has not brought any rules to the contrary in our notice. Therefore, the terms contained in the said Scheme are binding on the complainant. The question whether or not the demand raised by the OP to the extent of Rs.8332/- was legal or not or was not according to the terms and conditions of the conversion policy cannot be decided in a summary manner in the present proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Parties will have to lead specific documentary evidence in this regard which will ultimately require thorough examination of the documents and the legality thereof.
Allowed PAGE 7 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 It transpires that the OP vide letter dated 01.09.2000 informed the complainant that before allowing of execution of conveyance deed the allottee was required to pay service charges and ground rent as per the terms and conditions of the demand letter against 5th and final installment issued on 05.09.90. Simultaneously, the complainant was asked to pay TDS in the form of retention money on the amount credited to his account. As per the terms and conditions, the complainant was required to pay ground rent @ 2.5% of the balanced premium which works out to Rs.420/- per annum after two years in advance failing which interest @ 10% (simple) was payable. In addition to the dues he was to pay to the OP the difference of enhanced conversion charges of Rs.61366/- for conversion. The complainant was advised by the OP to collect the stamp papers from the Collector of Stamps but neither the complainant returned the conveyance deed within the time nor sent any reply. The allottee submitted conveyance deed paper on 04.03.14 which was issued to him on 01.09.2000 by the OP. The OP submitted the inspection report as Ex. CW-1/35. As the OP had charged as per the terms and conditions of the above scheme, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
9. It is the case of the appellant in appeal that the impugned order is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The District Forum did not consider the fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in processing his freehold application as the respondent took 249 days against the 90 days period Allowed PAGE 8 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 as per the brochure of the respondent which constituted an agreement between the parties. The District Forum did not consider the delay of the respondent in providing the details of recoverable dues of Rs.8,332 and without settling the recoverable dues of the said amount of Rs.8,332/- his freehold application could not be processed further. The details of the breakup of the recoverable dues was given by the respondent only on 7th December 2014 in its written statement and the said amount of Rs.8,332/- was reduced to Rs.2,856 and absolved the complainant from all past and future liabilities of delay payment and interest accrued. Therefore, a wrong demand of Rs.8,332/- was raised by the respondent and the same was responsible in delay in processing his freehold application. The appellant on line deposited the said amount of Rs.2,856/- in December, 2014 itself along with necessary papers and requested for issuance of no dues certificate and to process his application further. Therefore, the demand of Rs.64,219/- raised by the respondent on the basis of brochure of 2014 was totally illegal. The District Forum did not consider that the date of depositing the conversion charges or the first installment thereof was the crucial date for the purpose of calculating the conversion charges, as per the respondent's brochure.
10. The appellant has thus prayed that the appeal be allowed and an order be passed directing the respondent to convert his DDA flat bearing no. L-259 from lease hold to freehold and set aside the illegal demand of Rs.8,332/- and Rs.64,219/-. He has also prayed that directions be given to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, physical and mental agony suffered by him and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs.
Allowed PAGE 9 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024
11. The respondent has filed reply to the appeal wherein he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal, with costs by submitting that the appeal is false and frivolous. The appellant has neither proved deficiency in service nor any negligence on the part of the respondent. The appellant submitted the conveyance deed papers only on 4th March 2014 which was issued to him on 01.09.2000. The appellant himself is responsible for delay in submission of the conveyance deed papers. The appellant was not present at the time of inspection of the flat.
12. The appellant as well as the respondent have filed their written synopsis.
13. We have gone through the material on record.
14. The only question for consideration is whether there is any illegality or material irregularity in the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by Ld. District Forum.
15. In the present case the fact that on 24.12.1999, the appellant had applied for conversion of his lease hold flat bearing no.L-259 Sarita Vihar to freehold and paid the conversion charges of Rs.16,667/- and processing fee of Rs.200/- is clear from the Application Form (page 32) of the appeal. It is worth noting that the said freehold application of the appellant was found in order by the DDA/respondent. Further, as per brochure of the respondent (page 12), the application, which was found in order by the respondent was required to be disposed of within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of completion of formalities. It is also worth noting that the respondent issued a demand letter dated 1st September 2000 (page 77) wherein a Allowed PAGE 10 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 total sum of Rs.8,332/- was demanded from the appellant towards ground rent, service charges and retention money. Four copies of the unsigned conveyance deed forms were also enclosed with that letter and appellant was asked to get all those forms stamped from the office of Collector of Stamps at Vikas Sadan, INA and after stamping the forms, the same were required to be returned by him to the office of the respondent within 45 days. It is worth noting that thereafter, the appellant wrote three letters dated 21.09.2000, 18.06.2001 and 03.10.2001 to the respondent (page 81, 82 & 83 respectively) and requested to submit the clarification of the demand of the amount of Rs.8,332/- but he did not receive any information from the respondent. It is also worth noting that the appellant wrote various letters and also attended several public meetings as well and contacted Assistant Director/Deputy Director (LABH) and made representation to the Vice Chairman of the respondent to resolve his dispute. But he did not find any solution from the respondent and ultimately filed the complaint before the District Forum on 13.08.2014. It is worth noting that for the first time, in the written statement submitted by the respondent on 27.11.2014, the breakup of the recoverable dues of Rs.8,332/- was specified by the respondent and the said amount of Rs.8,332/- was reduced to Rs.2856/- (Rs.2,016 towards capitalized value of ground rent and Rs.840/- towards capitalized value of service charges) by the respondent and the appellant was absolved from all past and future liabilities of delayed payment and interest accrued therein. It is also significant to note that the appellant had paid that amount of Rs.2,856/- vide online challan no.99917759 on 07.12.2014 itself and deposited all the documents at Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and requested the respondent to issue no dues certificate and process his Allowed PAGE 11 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 freehold application. But the respondent raised a fresh demand of Rs.64,219/- towards the difference of enhanced conversion charges on the basis of DDA's brochuer of 2014.
16. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the said demand of Rs. 64,219/- on the basis of brochure of 2014 on the part of the respondent was justified or not.
17. To resolve this issue, we would like to refer the judgment of State Commission in DDA vs Pankaj Aggarwal in FA No.08/2012 decided on 30.07.2013 wherein it was observed as under:
"It is mentioned in the brochure that the conversion will be completed within 90 days and the brochure constitutes an agreement between the parties and the DDA is supposed to comply within the condition mentioned in the brochure and can wriggle itself out of the commitment. Agreements must be strictly imposed and if that is not done there will be turmoil and chaos in the society and in business dealing in particular.
The DDA must therefore deemed to be bound by what has been said in the brochure".
18. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, it is worth noting that the respondent has raised a demand of Rs. 64,219 on the basis of DDA brochure of 2014. It is also worth noting that the appellant has applied for conversion of his leasehold flat No. L-259 Sarita Vihar New Delhi to freehold on 24th December 1999 and paid one time conversion charges of Rs.16,667 and processing fee of Rs. 200/- It is significant to note that as per scheme of conversion (page
11) brochure of the year 1999, the said conversion charges were applicable till 27th December 1999 only. Hence, we are of the Allowed PAGE 12 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 considered view that the case of the appellant was to be governed by the brochure of year 1999 only. Further, as per terms of the said brochure, if the application was found by the respondent in order, the same was required to be disposed of within a period of 90 days from the date of completion of formalities. However, the application of the appellant was processed by the respondent in 249 days. It is worth noting that the application of appellant could not be processed by the respondent as the appellant did not deposit the amount of Rs.8,332/- as per demand letter dated 01.09.2000. It is also worth noting that the respondent did not furnish the details of amount of Rs.8,332/- to the appellant despite his several requests and furnished the details of that amount only in its written statement in the year 2014. It is further worth mentioning that the respondent resolved the matter in February 2002 and reduced the amount of Rs.8,332/- to Rs.2,856/- and absolved the appellant from all past and future liabilities of delayed payment and interest accrued there on as per the written statement filed by the respondent before Ld District Forum. It is further worth mentioning that the said amount of Rs.2,856/- was deposited by the appellant in the year 2014, when the written statement was filed by the respondent.
19. Since, the crucial date, for the purpose of calculating the conversion charges was the date of depositing the conversion charges or the first installment thereof as per brochure of 1999 and appellant had already deposited the conversion charges and process fee on 24.12.1999 and further deposited a sum of Rs. 2,856/- in the year 2014 as per the directions of the respondent in these Allowed PAGE 13 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024 circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondent was not justified in raising a fresh demand of Rs. 64,219/- towards the difference of conversion charges on the basis of its brochure of the year 2014. We are of the considered view that there was deficiency in service on the part of the DDA.
20. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
21. Consequently, we set aside the illegal demand of Rs. 64,219 raised by the respondent as well as of Rs.8,332/- as responded had already reduced the said demand to Rs.2,856/- and appellant has already deposited that amount in December 2014.
22. We direct the respondent to convert the flat of the appellant bearing no. L-259 Sarita Vihar from lease hold to freehold within a period of 3 months from the date of this order.
23. We further the direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to appellant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation charges.
24. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
Allowed PAGE 14 OF 15 FA-343/2017 SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE VS VICE CHAIRMAN DDA D.O.D. :.13.03.2024
25. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
26. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
27. Appeal file be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(RAJAN SHARMA) Member (Judicial) (BIMLA KUMARI) Member (Female) PRONOUNCED ON 13.03.2024 Allowed PAGE 15 OF 15