Date of Arguments:11.03.2019 Date of Decision: 18.03.2019

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Arguments :11.03.2019
Date of Decision : 18.03.2019
FIRST APPEAL NO.519 /2015
In the matter of:
Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New delhi-110023.………Appellant
Versus
Shri Thakur Singh,
Son of Late Chand Singh,
R/o. A-112/2,
Paryavaran Complex,
IGNOU Road (Saket),
New Delhi-110030...….Respondent
CORAM
Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
-1-
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporter or

not? Yes/No
Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
JUDGEMENT
1. Aggrieved by order dated 14.03.14 passed by District Forum II allowing the complaint of
respondent and directing the appellant to restore membership of the complainant qua
AAY1989 scheme/ seniority/ priority of the respondent and to consider his case for
allotment in subsequent scheme, if there existed no house to be allotted to the respondent in
the concerned scheme. The appellant was also directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs for harassment,
mental agony and torture including cost of litigation.
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The respondent registered himself for allotment of MIG
flat under Ambedkar Avas Yojana 1989 (AAY) special housing registration scheme for
SC/ST person. He deposited Rs.12,000/- with the appellant which is still lying with the
appellant. The appellant allowed type A (one room unit) i.e. incremental flat no.4, Block-D
at Dwarka, (Bindapur) constructed on 20.5 sq. meters under expendable housing scheme.
Appellant did so of its own against eligibility criteria. The respondent got himself registered
for allotment of type-B flat (three room unit). Order of preference was also available.
Respondent opted for second choice of type of house. On inspection respondent was
surprised to find that allotted accommodation was less than was stipulated in table 2 of the
brochure for type-B flats constructed on 40 sq. meters. The condition of the flat was
deplorable. So he did not accept the allotment. In the mean time appellant issued policy
guidelines dated 23.05.95 vide which appellant decided that those registrants of NPRS
79/AAY 89 who are allotted incremental flat before announcement of EHS 1995 were not
liable to pay cancellation charges/ surrender charges and their seniority/ priority would
remain intact.
3. Respondent vide letter dated 01.08.96 requested for cancellation of allotment and restoration
of previous number priority of AAY 89. His request was rejected by appellant vide letter
dated 17.07.97.
4. The appellant filed WS stating that it opened expandable housing scheme 1995 from
24.01.95 to 02.02.95. respondent submitted application no.B9212 dated 01.03.95. It denied
that it allotted flat to the complainant under EHS 1995 of its own, against eligibility criteria.
In the draw held in 1995, respondent was allotted flat no.470, Block B, Pkt. 3, Bindapur
which was incremental flat, respondent could construct said flat up to second storey adhering
to the terms and conditions. Instead of depositing the demanded amount, the respondent
requested for cancellation of allotment due to financial constraints on01.08.96 Ex CW 1/L.
On this request, the allotment as well as registration of respondent was cancelled. Letter
dated 17.07.97 was sent to that effect and it was mentioned that no registration money was
refundable as request for cancellation was received beyond 60 days of issue of demand
letter. It denied that notification dated 23.05.95 was applicable in the case of respondent.
5. Both the parties filed evidence by affidavit and written arguments. After going through the
material on record and hearing the arguments, the District Forum arrived at a conclusion that
-2-
5.
request for cancellation of the flat was not a condition precedent for non application of
circular. It did not accept the objection of the appellant that after cancellation of flat,
respondent did not remain consumer. It found that since respondent have not received the
refund, he continued to be consumer. He had made request for allotment of type B (three
room unit). Hence the impugned order was passed.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The validity of act of
the appellant in cancelling the allotment or justifiability thereof can not be agitated. The
reason being that appellant did not cancel the same of its own. Rather it did so on the basis
of request from respondent. When an applicant himself applies for cancelation, there is no
rerequirement to justify the act of cancellation.
7. During arguments I took copy of request of complainant which is internal page 14 of the file
of appellant. I also took copy of letter from appellant to respondent which is internal page 15
of the file of appellant. The same have been kept on record of appeal file. Request for
cancellation unequivocally recites that due to unforeseen circumstances and prevailing
financial constraints the respondent was unable to arrange payment of the demanded amount
in connection with allotment of flat 470. It does not say even a single word about the size of
flat or deplorable condition of flat. Hence the order of the District Forum directing appellant
to restore the flat or consider respondent in a fresh scheme, can not be sustained.
8. However I am unable to appreciate the plea of appellant that it is not liable to refund the
registration amount or that the registration amount is liable to be forfeited simply because
cancellation was made more than 60 days after the offer letter. I may also mention that
request for cancellation refers to letter of appellant dated 05.07.96. The request for
cancellation bears dated 01.08.96 which is within 60 days but the same appears to have been
delivered in the office of appellant on 16.09.96 which is beyond 60 days. Whatever may be
the gap between the offer letter and request for cancellation, equity, fairness and good
conscious requires appellant which is a semi government to act fairly and on the principles
of natural justice. It must refund the amount which it has received from the applicants /
registrants. It must also pay interest at reasonable rate say 12% per annum from the date of
deposit i.e. 29.12.89 till the date of refund. Accordingly the appeal is accepted in part,
impugned order is modified to the effect that appellant would refund Rs.12,000/- alongwith
interest @12% per annum from 29.12.89 till the date of refund. The same will take care of
compensation and cost of litigation also. The appellant to comply with the order within two
months from the receipt of copy of this order.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
10. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
11. File be consigned to record room.
(O.P. GUPTA)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
-3-

Date of Arguments:11.03.2019 Date of Decision: 18.03.2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date of Arguments:11.03.2019 Date of Decision: 18.03.2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date of Arguments:11.03.2019 Date of Decision: 18.03.2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :11.03.2019

Date of Decision : 18.03.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.519 /2015

In the matter of:

Delhi Development Authority,

Through its Vice Chairman,

Vikas Sadan, INA,

Shri Thakur Singh,

Son of Late Chand Singh,

IGNOU Road (Saket),

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

2. To be referred to the reporter or

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

You might also like