The DDA has been ordered by Delhi State Consumer Commission to pay Rs 1.05 lakh as compensation to a physically-challenged man for sending its demand letter for the cost of a flat allotted to him on his old address despite having the new one and then cancelling the allocation.
Terming the DDA’s attitude as “cavalier,” the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC) also ordered the housing body to either provide complainant Rajesh Tiwari a MIG flat as per his initial allotment or to pay him Rs 22.5 lakh as the current cost of such an apartment.
“The show cause notice was sent at the permanent (old) address,while the same should also have been sent to his (Tiwari’s) present address in order to ensure information is given to the complainant. The cavalier manner in which the DDA dealt with the situation… shows they just wanted to fulfill a superficial requirement and did not entertain a sincere desire that the communications should be received by him.
“The DDA must,therefore,provide a flat to Tiwari at the agreed rate between them. If those flats are not available,it must provide flat from elsewhere or from any of its other schemes. If that is also not possible,he should be paid the current price of a flat which is determined at Rs 22.5 lakh,” the bench presided by Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi said.
The commission’s order came on an appeal by Tiwari against the district forum’s verdict,which had dismissed his plea against DDA saying that his appeal was time barred because the cause of action had arisen from DDA’s show cause notice in July 2001,but the complaint was filed in March 2007.
The state commission,however,rejected the argument that the complaint was time-barred,saying no time limit was fixed for delivery of flat and said “the complainant demanded Rs one lakh as compensation and he deserves the same,in view of the indifferent attitude of the DDA. Costs of Rs 5,000”.
Tiwari in his complaint before the district forum had said that he had registered himself with the DDA for allotment of a MIG flat under the Out of Turn Allotment Scheme in the physically-handicapped category.
He had later intimated the agency about his change in residence through a letter on September 18,1995,he had said.
The DDA in its defence had contended that it had sent the demand-cum-allotment letter to his older (permanent) residence as that was the address he had given in his affidavits.
The commission rejected the contention saying “the DDA should have realised that the change of address had already been communicated to them. In view of this so called discrepancy,it was necessary for the DDA to send the letter of allotment at both the addresses in order to ensure that information of the same has been communicated to the appellant/complainant.”