RAJINDER SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present complaint has been filed under Sec.17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Sh. Rajinder Singh against Delhi Development Authority through its Vice-Chairman and Commissioner (Housing) D. D. A.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant is an employee of Delhi Administration working as U. D. C. in the DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. In response to the advertisement of the O. P.-DDA, the complainant got himself registered for an LIG flat vide application form No.207357 bearing registration No.48141. The complainant as per requirement of the scheme also deposited Rs.1,500 on 28.9.1979 and his priority number was 18527. At that time the cost of the flat as indicated by the O. P.-DDA was Rs.18,000/-. After more than 11 years a flat in Sector 15 Block G. Pocket 2 No.29 FST, Rohini was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 3.5.1990 in pursuance of a draw held in March, 1990. The complainant was asked to deposit the full cost of the flat amounting to Rs 95,054.16 by 1.8.1990. The complainant requested for extension of time as the cost of the flat escalated more than five times than that of the original cost. The complainant sent written requests to the O. P. DDA for extension of time on 19.7.1990, 9.8.1990, 12.9.1990, 11.10.1990 and 24.10.1990. However, in spite of the complainant's request for extension of time, the O. P.-DDA cancelled the allotment of the flat on 28.9.1990 for non-compliance of the terms stipulated in the allotment-cum-demand letter. The complainant also visited the office of the O. P. several times and explained the circumstances under which he was not in a position to arrange the funds immediately but nothing was done. Then the complainant made representation to the Assistant Director (Housing) on 6.12.1990 with a request for reconsideration of his name for an alternative flat at Rohini. On the representation of the complainant, the Commissioner (housing) listed the matter in the Public Hearing Day on 21.1.1991. On that day the Commissioner (Housing) assured the complainant that he would examine the case sympathetically. In February, 1991 the Commissioner (Housing) sent the file to the Vice-Chairman, DA who agreed for allotment of an alternative flat in the name of the complainant through a mini draw to be held in March, 1991. In the meanwhile the complainant applied for House Building Loan and advance withdrawal of GPF from Delhi Administration and after the loan and advance from GPF was sanctioned the complainant deposited Rs.95,054.16 vide Bank Draft along with FDR of Rs.1,500/- and other documents in pursuance to the allotment letter. The O. P. accepted the said amount from the complainant and issued a letter dated 23.11.1990 asking the complainant to deposit the cancellation charges of Rs.2,647/- within 60 days for consideration of the complainant's name at the tail-end of the priority list.

(3.) The complainant stated that in spite of the decision of the Vice-Chairman his case was not considered in the mini draw held in March, 1991. In the meanwhile the complainant received another allotment-cum-demand letter dated 27.2.1992 from the O. P.-DDA informing the complainant that a flat at Pocket A-I, Type II, GR 8 and 9 No.68 D FST located at Kondli Gharoli has been allotted to the complainant in the general draw held on 27.2.1999. The complainant was asked to deposit Rs.76,100/- by 27.5.1992 and the total cost of the flat was shown as Rs.1,94,900/-. According to the complainant, he initially applied for an LIG flat as the indicated cost was Rs.18,000/- in 1979 but when the flat was allotted in May, 1990 the cost of the flat escalated to Rs.1,94,900/- and the complainant was directed to deposit the money within two months. However, while the complainant was arranging for funds the allotment was cancelled by the O. P.-DDA. It is further stated by the complainant that he applied for an LIG Flat in Rohini and not in Kondli Gharoli and has deposited the cancellation charges for the allotment of flat at Rohini. However the O. P. allotted him a flat at Kondli Gharoli after two years and the estimated cost was more than double of the earlier flat allotted to the complainant at Rohini which was subsequently cancelled. The complainant did not deposit the amount for the flat at Kondli Gharoli as he was not interested in a flat at a different place but he continued his efforts and made representation to the O. P.-DDA for allotment of a flat at Rohini.