PREM DEVI DECEASED Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Prem Devi against the order dated 18.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.437 of 2016.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is the only son and legal heir of Smt. Prem Devi who died on 05.10.1998. She was allotted flat No.M & N 243 A, Sarita Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi under Janta category against NPRS, A/7110 vide registration No.9900, priority no.4285 in draw held on 25.02.87 against payment of Rs.36,500/- vide letter dated 10.03.87. The complainant deposited Rs.13,800/- vide various challans. Required documents were deposited with respondent/opposite party, but possession was not handed over. The complainant prayed for handing over of possession against deposit of balance amount, for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing harassment, mental tension and physical suffering and monetary loss. Respondent took objection that complaint was barred by limitation. On merits it pleaded that the flat was booked by Smt. Prem Devi w/o Om Prakash and not Prem Devi w/o Brij Lal. The lady who booked the flat appeared in VC's public hearing who ordered lodging of complaint against cheater. Accordingly a complaint was lodged with SHO, PS Kotla Mubarakpur on 11.1.87. Flat No.243A, Sarita vihar had already been allotted to someone in draw held on 29.03.86. The real lady booking the flat was allotted another flat No.212A, Sarita Vihar and demand cum allotment letter was issued to her on 29.12.87. After receipt of payment and documents, possession of said flat was given to the real lady on 09.05.88. On the basis of these objections, the opposite party requested for dismissal of the complaint. The District Forum vide its order dated 08.06.2016 dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred appeal being FA No.437 of 2016 before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 18.10.2016 dismissed the appeal.