DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. P K THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. P. K. Thakur, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, was allotted MIG flat in Rohini for Rs.1,55,600/- in Feb. , 90. In view of the initial deposit made at the time of registration, which was to be adjusted, the complainant was asked to pay balance of Rs.1,46,860.43 upto 22.4.90. The amount was deposited by the complainant on 17.4.90. The complainant was also required to submit certain documents by a prescribed date. The documents were, infact, submitted after that date on 26.6.90. Because of late submission of the documents the allotment was cancelled and the complainant was called upon to deposit Rs.2,366.05 as cancellation charges and Rs.2,500/- as restoration charges. The complainant paid both the cancellation and restoration charges on 4.1.91. Further case of the complainant was that on 21.3.91 he asked the opposite party to either allot the flat in Rohini at the original price or refund the amount to him. Having failed to get either of the above reliefs, he filed a complaint before District Forum-II on 3.8.92. The plea of the complainant was that he intimated about change of his mailing address to the opposite party but the letter asking him to furnish various documents was sent at his old address and the same was returned as undelivered by the postal authorities. On discovering the mistake the opposite party sent another letter at the new address which was received by him in March, 90. His further plea was that he had complied with all the formalities within the period of three months allowed for the purpose.

(2.) The complaint was contested. On a consideration of the matter the District Forum did not accept the plea of the complainant that he had intimated change in address to the opposite party. It was further held that cancellation of the allotment was in accordance with the terms and conditions of allotment and the complainant was not entitled to restoration of allotment of flat at Rohini. It was further observed that it was not clear whether the complainant was interested in allotment of another flat in another area namely Jahangir Puri. It was, therefore, directed that if the complainant was interested in retaining the allotment of the flat in Jahangir Puri, he shall inform the opposite party accordingly. In such a case, the opposite party was directed to allot the flat at the disposal price fixed for that flat at the time of allotment. If the complainant decided not to avail of the allotment at Jahangir Puri, the amount paid by him towards the cost of the flat at Rohini was to be refunded alongwith the interest @ 15% p. a. from 17.4.90 when he had originally paid the amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was not considered appropriate to allow any amount towards costs and damages. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party, DDA has preferred this appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Mr. Naresh Thanai, learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that on 18.2.91 a draw of lots regarding allotment of flats in Jahangir Puri took place. The complainant was successful in that draw and, accordingly, letter of allocation was sent to him dated 5/7.9.91. He further stated that the complainant failed to inform the DDA, that he was not interested in having a flat at Jahangir Puri. He actually filed the prescribed affidavit as well as undertaking in writing which, by necessary implication showed that he accepted the allotment of the flat in Jahangir Puri. In addition to affidavit and undertaking referred to above, the complainant also accepted, under his own signatures, the letter of possession dated 31.3.92. He further pointed out that it was sometime later that the complainant seems to have changed his mind and started raising claim for restoration of the allotment in respect of the flat at Rohini. In these circumstances it was submitted that the complainant was not entitled to any interest. The contention of Mr. Vipin K. Dwivedi, on the other hand, is that in addition to cancellation charges the complainant had deposited Rs.2,500/- as restoration charges which implied that he was interested in the allotment of the flat at Rohini. Instead of dealing with the case for allotment of flat at Rohini the opposite party had dealt with the case for allotment at Jahangir Puri without obtaining consent of the complainant. He pointed out that adjustment of Rs.1,18,000/- from out of the money already deposited and further adjustment of about seven instalments had been unilaterally made by the opposite party. He further submitted that in the complaint filed before the District Forum in August, 1992 the category cal case of the complainant was that either he may be restored the allotment of the flat in Rohini or refunded the whole amount together with interest.