SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 33020

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PROMILA MAHAJAN – Appellant
Versus
DDA – Respondent
SC/7/A/261/2024



IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 03.03.2024 Date of hearing: 12.09.2025 Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 261/2024 IN THE MATTER OF:

1. MS. PROMILA MAHAJAN, 214D, IDEAL APARTMENT, NASIRPUR DWARKA, OPP. NASIRPUR SUBZI MANDI, NEW DELHI – 110045.

THROUGH ASHWANI KUMAR MAHAJAN HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT.

2. MR. RAVI GROVER, 214D, IDEAL APARTMENT, NASIRPUR DWARKA, OPP. NASIRPUR SUBZI MANDI, NEW DELHI – 110045. .... Appellants in Person VERSUS

1. VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIKAS SADAN, INA, NEW DELHI – 110023.

2. DY DIRECTOR (MIG)/ DDA, VIKAS SADAN, INA, NEW DELHI – 110023.

3. DY DIRECTOR (GH) DDA, VIKAS SADAN, INA, NEW DELHI – 110023. (Through: Mr. Mayank Bamniyal, Advocate)

....Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. A.K. Mahajan, Husband of the appellant.

Adv Mayank Bamniyal, counsel for the Respondent (Email:

bamniyal.mayank@gmail.com) appeared through VC.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case necessary as per the District Commission record are:

“1. The Complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs with the averments that the present complaint is filed by the complainants through Sh. Ashwani Kumar through, i.e. husband of complainant no. 1. The complainants were registered under registration scheme on New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (Hudco)/MIG of Delhi Development Authority vide registration no.798 dated

10.03.1980 and 25749 dated 31.05.1980. On 03.07.1979 and

27.09.1979, the complainants had deposited Rs.4500/- each vide book no.1306 and 1492. The deposit was for a period of one year which carried the interest @7 percent per annum.

The Allotment was on first come first serve basis but subsequently priority numbers were allotted by lottery system. OP-1 could not construct the flats so it launched "Awas Sakar Yojna" which enabled the complainants to switch over to said Yojna. The applicants/registrants were to form a Cooperative Housing Society under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. The societies were formed and accordingly the name of Ideal Cooperative Group Hosing Society Ltd. was given to the society with registration no. at Sr. No. 2013 dated 29.01.1990. They have became the members of the society and their number were at Sr. No. 72 and 24 respectively. plot measuring 4500 sq. mtr. at pocket 6, plot no. 14, sector 1A Dwarka, Nasirpur Subzi Mandi was allotted and they were to deposit Rs. 49,50,000/- between January, 1991 to April, 1995 with delayed interest.

The members of the society were from lower and middle income group. It was very difficult to arrange the said money. OP-1 has defaulted which amounted to deficiency-in-service. The society was short of Rs.6 Lakh at one point of time. OP-1 pressurized to pay the interest for delayed payment. The society has requested OP-1 vide letter dated 13.05.1996 to adjust the delayed interest out of the deposited amount of the members but OP-1 did not agree thus members were squeezed to arrange the money in order to avoid cancellation of plots. The society has requested with OP-1 for the refund of deposits with interest but OP-1 release deposits of sum of the members case. Complainant no. 1 took up the matter with OP-1 vide letters dated 05.10.2005 and 17.07.2006 and also visited to the office of OP-1 but in vain.

The complainants were left with no alternative but to take a legal recourse. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP-1 to OP-3 has amended the written statement and filed amended written statement with the preliminary objections that the complaint is false and frivolous. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. The complaint is barred by limitation. NPRS cheme has already been closed so complainants are not entitled for any relief.

The policy of OP-1 is binding on the parties. The public notices were issued by OP

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top