Judgment:
A.P. Chowdhri, President:
1. Brief facts of the case are that one Mr. Jhangi Mal got himself registered under the New Pattern 1979 Scheme of DDA for an MIG flat by depositing Rs. 4,500/- in 1979. He died on 26.5.1987 leaving behind a son named R.K. Punjabi and widow Smt. Saraswati Punjabi. The widow applied for transfer of registration in her name on 4.6.1987. She furnished NOC from the other heirs of Jhangi Mal, deceased, on 17.6.1987 and complied with other formalities on 8.9.1987. Some more documents, which she was required to produce, were furnished on 15.10.1987.
2. An allotment letter dated 31.7.1987 for a sum of Rs. 1,62,700/- to be paid on cash down basis, was issued in the name of the deceased Jhangi Mal. In the allotment letter, the name of Jhangi Mal was scored out and that of the complainant written in ink. The date of the correction is however, not mentioned. The last date upto which the payment of the disposal price was to be made was 20.10.1987, failing which the allotment was liable to result in automatic cancellation. By a receipted challan dated 29.9.1987, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,55,335.82 being the net amount payable after adjustment of the registration amount and the interest earned by the registrant thereon in terms of the Scheme. The complainant had earlier made a representation to the Vice-Chairman of DDA to permit her to deposit the disposal price by instalments on 8.9.1987. No order having been communicated on the representation, the case of the complainant is that she assumed that her prayer had been accepted. The case of the DDA, on the order hand, is that since the complainant was not informed about the acceptance of the representation, it followed that her prayer had not been accepted. This fact, however, need not detain us as it has been proved that the amount was in fact, deposited on 29.9.1987. Receipted challan for the amount was produced before the District Forum and a copy thereof has been placed on the record of the appeal.
3. The DDA, instead of mutating the name of the complainant for the original registrant, seems to have taken the stand that the registration had been cancelled and accordingly, insisted on depositing of Rs. 2,500/- as restoration charges. The restoration charges were deposited on 7.1.1988. Possession letter was issued on 29.3.1988 and possession actually delivered on 19.4.1988. The grievance of the complainant was firstly that she was not liable to pay any restoration charges as the disposal price mentioned in the allotment letter had been deposited by her within the time limit allowed by the DDA. Secondly, there was undue delay in the issuance of possession letter and delivery of possession. She accordingly, claimed recovery of Rs. 2,500/- recovered from her as restoration charges and interest on the sum of Rs. 1,62,700/-.
4. On a consideration of the material before it. District Forum-I held that the complaint was barred by limitation as the restoration charges were paid on 7.1.1988 and the complaint was filed on 25.2.1991. It was further held that no evidence had been produced to show on which particular date the disposal price was actually deposited by the complainant and therefore, no case for recovery of interest had been made out. The complaint was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Aggrieved by order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
5. We have heard Mr. Jawahar Chawla, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Naresh Thanai, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records.
6. The contention of Mr. Thanai is that the name of the complainant was substituted for that of the original registrant only on 16.12.1987. Possession letter was issued within about three months on 29.3.1988 and actual possession delivered within less than one month thereof on 19.4.1988 and there was thus, no case for the grant of interest. The contention of Mr. Chawla, on the other hand, is that in the first instance, the DDA did not call upon the complainant to furnish various documents in one go. On the contrary, the dealing persons were coming out with the requirement of various documents in deiblets for reasons which can be easily understood. The complainant having failed to oblige certain officials, she was denied mutation of her name for that of her late husband. After going through the record we find that the additional documents required were furnished on 15.10.1987. The letter of possession should have normally been issued within a reasonable period therefrom. In our view, the DDA could reasonably require about 2 months' time to substitute the name of the complainant for the original registrant. That period ended on 15.12.1987. Possession letter was, however, issued on 29.3.1988. There was, thus a delay from 15.12.1987 to 29.3.1988. This constituted deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to compensation for this delay.
7. According to the allotment letter dated 31.7.1987, the payment of the amount of Rs. 1,62,700/-was to be made up to 29.12.1987. In fact, the payment was made on 29.9.1987. There was no question of cancellation of registration and consequently, the demand for deposit of restoration charges was illegal. The complainant cannot be found fault with for having deposited the restoration charges of Rs. 2,500/- on 7.1.1988 because she could not afford to take the risk of loosing the flat. The facts on record clearly show that the said recovery was totally unjustified and the amount must be refunded to the complainant. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to refund Rs. 2,500/- recovered as restoration charges alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from 7.1.1988 till date of refund.
8. The respondent is further directed to pay interest on the sum of Rs. 1,55,335.82 @ 15% p.a. for the period 16.12.1987 to 28.3.1988. The respondent shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs. These payments shall be made within 6 weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which action is liable to be taken u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties as well as District Forum-I.
Appeal allowed with costs.