SUDERSHAN SINGH vs D.D.A.

THE present appeal is filed by the appellant, against order of District Forum-II dated the 20th February, 1996 in Complaint Case No. 3148/94, entitled Sh. Sudershan Singh v. THE Vice Chairman, DDA.

THE relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant applied for allotment of a Low Income Group Flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme of 1979 with the respondent, vide registration No. 52875 dated the 23rd June, 1980. THEreafter the appellant was allotted a flat bearing No. 122-F, Type II, Pocket A-2, GRP-II, Koundli Gharoli, vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 9/13th January, 1991 at a total cost of Rs. 1,84,300/-. THE appellant as required, deposited Rs. 74,485/- as initial amount on 14.3.1991. It is the case of the appellant that after the initial payment he also submitted the relevant documents and completed all the other formalities/requirements and received a possession letter and permission to get electricity connection in the allotted flat. It is further stated by the appellant that on visiting the site, he found that the flat allotted to him was occupied by and allotted to one Sh. Balbir Singh. Since, the possession of the flat in question could not be handed over to the appellant, he was advised to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,830/- as restoration charges for fresh allotment, which he paid vide challan No. 26573 dated 30.6.1992. But as no flat was allotted to the complainant even after the deposit of the restoration charges, he filed a complaint before the District Forum. The respondent controverted all the other allegations of the appellant in its written version/reply. It was stated by the respondent that though the appellant had made the initial payment as mentioned above yet the fact remains that he did not submit the relevant documents in time and, therefore, his allotment automatically stood cancelled and the alleged flat was re-allocated to someone else. It was also stated by the respondent that on the payment of restoration charges by the appellant, his registration for allotment of flat was restored but the name of the appellant would be included at the tail end of the list for re-allotment.

The learned District Forum called for the original record of the case from the respondent and on scrutiny of the same arrived at the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as the appellant had concealed the fact of cancellation of his allotment and, therefore, dismissed the complaint of the appellant.

AGGRIEVED by the said order the appellant has filed the present appeal. Notice of the appeal was given to the respondent who has entered appearance through Advocate. During the pendency of proceedings before us, the respondent refunded Rs. 74,485/- to the appellant being the principal amount paid by him to the respondent. The said payment was accepted by the appellant without prejudice to his claims, and the controversy was limited to the refund of Rs. 1,500/- paid as earnest money by the appellant and interest due on the above amounts.

WE have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and have also gone through the documents/material on record. The appellant has not placed anything on record to show that he had submitted the required documents to the respondent in time and that the cancellation of his allotment was wrong. The appellant has, however, placed on record a copy of letter of possession as well as a copy of letter dated the 14th December, 1992 written by the appellant to the respondent. The letter of possession is notarised on 13.1.1991, whereas the payment of initial amount for allotment of flat was made by the appellant on 14.3.1991, as such the said document must have been sent alongwith the letter of allotment dated 9/13.1.1991. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the letter of possession was issued to him after he fulfilled all the formalities appears to be incorrect. Further, in his letter dated 14.12.1992, the appellant has himself admitted that his earlier allotment of flat had been cancelled and that he had deposited Rs. 4,830/- as cancellation charges, and as such the version of facts as stated by the respondent seems to be correct that the appellant has tried to conceal the fact that his allotment was cancelled due to non-submission of the required documents in time. However, there is no reason for us to dis-believe the observations made by the learned District Forum in the impugned order in this regard, as, it had the opportunity of going though entire evidence on record as well as the original records of the respondent. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the finding of the learned District Forum that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in the present case. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. There is, however, no order as to costs. Before concluding we may clarify that if the above said amount of Rs. 1,500/-, paid as earnest money, by the appellant alongwith interest is due and payable by the respondent as per its policy, the same be paid to the appellant at the earliest. Appeal dismissed.