Home
Judgments
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S KUSHAL SINGH RAWAT
View 3634 Cases Against Development Authority
KUSHAL SINGH RAWAT filed a consumer case on 07 Oct 2024 against DELHI
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY in the South Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/34/2017
and the judgment uploaded on 10 Oct 2024.
Delhi
South Delhi
CC/34/2017
KUSHAL SINGH RAWAT - Complainant(s)
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)
07 Oct 2024
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II UDYOG SADAN C 22
23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
Complaint Case No. CC/34/2017
( Date of Filing : 24 Jan 2017 )
1. KUSHAL SINGH RAWAT
42/1 SECTOR-1 PUSHP VIHAR NEW DELHI 110017. ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VIKAS SADAN BEHIND INA MARKET NEW DELHI 110023. ............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. MONIKA A. SRIVASTAVA PRESIDENT
KIRAN KAUSHAL MEMBER
PRESENT:
Dated : 07 Oct 2024
Final Order / Judgement
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.34/2017
Kushal Singh Rawat
S/o Sh. Gokal Singh Rawat
R/o 42/1, Sector-1,
Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi-110017. ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman:
Head Office:
Vikas Sadan,
Behind INA Market
New Delhi-110023
Also at:
LIG Housing Wing,
Vikas Sadan, Block-D
2nd Floor,
Room No.221,
INA, New Delhi-110023. ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 24.01.2017
Date of Order : 07.10.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Keshav Kumar along with complainant.
Adv. Neeraj Aggarwal for OP.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put, complainant applied for a flat in the Housing Scheme of Delhi Development
Authority (DDA), hereinafter referred to as OP.
2. It is stated that complainant in the month of October, 2014 paid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to OP
at the time of booking of flat in ‘General Category’. OP allotted a flat bearing no.37, Pocket-3,
Block F15, Sector G8, LIG, Narela, Delhi to the complainant in the reserved category ‘Scheduled
Cast’ instead of General Category. In this respect a demand letter dated 19.01.2015 was issued by
OP in favour of the complainant.
3. Complainant made several calls and visited OP to inform that he has been allotted a flat in
the wrong category. It is stated that one of the employees of OP asked him to make the payment
in accordance with the demand letter, otherwise complainant will have to pay excess penalty for
the late payment of the said flat. Complainant obtained a loan of Rs.8,50,000/- on interest from
various sources and withdrew sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from his General Provident Fund to make
payment to OP. It is stated that complainant had paid sum of Rs.12,54,474/- on 20.04.2015 to OP.
Thereafter OP asked the complainant to pay stamp duty for a sum of Rs.58,775/- which was also
paid by the complainant.
4. It is next stated that OP on account of the allotment under wrong category sent a letter dated
13.04.2016 to the complainant to apply for refund of registration money/initial costs deposited
along with original documents. Complainant was completely shocked on receiving the said letter
as complainant had paid huge interest for the loan obtained by him and after expiry of around
fourteen months, OP refused to allot any or said flat to the complainant.
5. It is next stated that vide memorandum/refund voucher dated 02.11.2016 Office of Collector
of Stamps through SDM intimated that amount of Rs.5,900/- has been deducted out of Rs.58,775/-
and rest of the amount i.e Rs.52,875/- will be refunded to the complainant .
6. It is stated that OP deposited Rs.13,54,474/- to Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance
Corporation Limited with the consent of the complainant. As the complainant had obtained a loan
of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited, it refunded
Rs.9,18,794/- on 01.06.2016 to the complainant after deducting the interest amount on the loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- provided to the complainant.
7. It is stated that complainant suffered on account of the interest paid on the loan taken and
also the money withdrawn from his General Provident Fund which cannot be deposited again in
his GPF account.
8. Alleging deficiency of service complainant prays for direction to OP to refund interest
amount and other expanses to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the loan obtained with
interest @24% p.a and also to direct to OP to pay Rs.8,00,000/- towards damages, inconvenience,
stress and huge monetary loss along with the costs of present complaint.
9. OP resisted the complaint stating interalia that the complaint is not maintainable on the
ground that after encashment of refund money that too without cancellation charges complainant
is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. OP has placed its reliance on Delhi
Development Authority Vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney and another (2003) 7 SCC 301 wherein Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that DDA is the creature of statute and therefore, the policy decision or
guidelines formulated by DDA have binding effect.
10. It is further stated that the complainant was allotted a flat under ‘SC’ category in the
computerized draw on 25.11.2014. Thereafter Complainant deposited the amount as per DAL and
also submitted documents with request to issue possession letter on 19.05.2015. It is next stated
that complainant was issued Conveyance Deed on 19.05.2015 to get it stamped. OP received a
letter on 04.11.2015 from the office of Director General of Naval Armament Inspection, IHQ of
MoD (Navy) intimating that complainant has been allotted under ‘SC’ Category however, he
belongs to ‘General Category’.
11. The matter was examined and considered by the competent authority of OP and was found
that complainant was not entitled for the said allotment. Accordingly, cancellation of the flat was
communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 13.04.2016. Thereafter, complainant requested
OP for refund of the deposited amount vide letter dated 28.04.2016. It is stated that amount
deposited vide challan No.90046708 for Rs.7,59,474/-, vide challan No.90046723 for
Rs.4,95,000/- and registration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- total amounting to Rs.13,54,474/- was
received by the complainant without any protest. The whole amount including registration money
without deducting the cancellation charges was refunded to the complainant. It is stated that the
deposit and refund of stamp duty does not pertain to OP.
12. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.
13. Complainant filed the rejoinder stating that the complainant has paid huge interest on the
loan taken on Rs.13,50,000/-. OP after about 14 months refused to allot any or the said flat to the
complainant hence OP is liable for deficiency in service. It is next stated that the brochure filed by
OP under Clause 9 (iii) has clearly stated that
‘in case of registration money is not refunded within three months from the closure of the scheme,
in case of unsuccessful applicants, simple interest 8% per annum will be paid on the registration
money for the period beyond three months after the closure of the scheme.’
14. Evidence and written arguments on behalf of the parties have been filed. Submissions made
on behalf of the parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
15. Admittedly, though the complainant had applied for a flat under the category code ‘Samanya
Shreni’ i.e. General Category he was allotted a flat under ‘SC category’. Complainant as per
Demand cum Allotment letter had paid Rs.12,54,474/- to OP by 20.04.2015.
16. It is noticed that upon realization of the fact that the flat was allotted to the complainant
under a wrong category complainant’s case was considered and rejected by the competent
authority of OP. Upon cancellation of the allotment the complainant was finally provided refund
of Rs.13,54,474/- by OP, which included the amount paid as per DAL and the registration money
of Rs.1,00,000/-.
17. On perusal of the material placed before us it is noticed that complainant had taken a loan
of Rs.5,00,000/- from Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. on 28.04.2015 to
make the payment in DDA Housing Scheme. Complainant took another loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from
the Army Headquarters Co-operative T & C Society Ltd. on 18.05.2015. After the allotment of
flat was cancelled, DDA on request from the complainant deposited Rs.13,54,474/- with Delhi Co-
operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. The said Corporation refunded the balance amount
of Rs.9,18,794/- after adjusting the loan outstanding dues of Rs.4,35,680/-. It is also noticed that
the office of Collector of Stamps refunded the amount paid by the complainant after deducting
Rs.5,900/-.
18. Though OP claims that the mistake of complainant’s name under SC category was made
by Axis Bank (which is not a party in the present case) no cogent proof has been filed by OP to
prove the same. Moreover, Complainant had filled the form provided by OP which clearly stated
that Complainant belonged to ‘Samanya Category’. Complainant had no privity of contract with
Axis Bank and has nothing to do with the arrangement between OP and the Axis Bank. There is
no denying the fact that complainant suffered monetary loss on account of the interest and other
charges paid on the loans and stamp duty paid by the complainant.
19. This Commission is of the considered view that the complainant not only suffered on account
of missing a chance to get a flat ,as his name was not put in the right category of draw of lots but
the complainant also suffered loss of interest on account of the loan taken and Rs.5,900/- the
amount deducted on the stamp duty paid by him. It is seen that the complainant was put to physical,
mental and financial loss for no fault of his.
20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh Appeal
(Civil) 7173 of 2002 held as under:-
‘the law is that the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction
even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become
liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious
or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by citizen. The word compensation
is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to
compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enables a consumer to claim and empower the
Commission to redress any injustice done.’
21. In light of the judgement (supra ) and the discussion above OP is directed pay Rs.2,00,000/-
towards the financial losses suffered by the complainant , compensation for harassment and
deficiency of service.
Copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be
uploaded on the website.
[HON'BLE MRS. MONIKA A. SRIVASTAVA]
PRESIDENT
[ KIRAN KAUSHAL]
MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
