##PAGE1##

A/409/2017 D.O.D.: 24.12.2025

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SHAKILA BEGAM

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Date of Institution: 10.08.2017

Date of Hearing: 26.11.2025

Date of Decision: 24.12.2025

FIRST APPEAL NO.-409/2017

IN THE MATTER OF

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

THROUGH ITS DY. DIRECTOR (L.M)

VIKAS SADAN, INA, NEW DELHI

…APPELLANT

(Through: Mr. Praduman Kr. Aggarwal, Advocate)

(Mob-9313170405)

VERSUS

MRS. SHAKILA BEGAM,

W/O LATE MR. MOHD. MUNAN,

JHUGGI NO.59/310,

GANDHI CAMP,

LAJPAT NAGAR-II,

NEW DELHI-110024

….RESPONDENT

(Through: Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate

Mob-9810123856 &

email: kapoorsandeepadv@gmail.com)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

PER : HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal (First Appeal) has been filed by the Appellant

against Respondent as detailed above, against the order dated

DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 8

A/409/2017 D.O.D.: 24.12.2025

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SHAKILA BEGAM

30.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission-II, (South-I) (hereinafter referred to as District

Commission) in Complaint (CC) No. 599/2010, inter-alia praying

for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.

2. While the Appellant was Opposite Party before the District

Commission and the Respondent was Complainant before the

District Commission.

3. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are

as under:

“Undisputed case of the parties is that in lieu of removal of

Jhuggi No.S-59/310, Gandhi Camp, Lajpat Nagar, New

Delhi where the complainant had been residing an

alternative plot measuring 12 sq. yds. was assured to be

allotted to him at Holambi Kalan, Delhi by the OP; that in

furtherance of the letter dated 03.03.04 sent by the OP the

complainant deposited the said sum through pay order No.

361694 dated 03.03.04 (Syndicate Bank, INA Colony, New

Delhi) as cost of a corner plot; that the OP is still

maintaining his file vide file No.F-9(516)03/LM/264

because the OP has failed to allot an alternative plot even

after lapse of 5 years and that in response to RTI

application the OP vide letter dated 12.03.10 informed the

complainant that at present no plot is available for

relocation of Jhuggi dwellers in LM/SEZ and as and when

the plots are made available by the Engineering

Department, the case of the complainant will be considered

for relocation. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the

part of the OP.”

DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 8

A/409/2017 D.O.D.: 24.12.2025

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS SHAKILA BEGAM

4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the

material available on record passed the judgment dated

30.05.2017, whereby it held as follows:

“It is for the first time that in the written argument the

OP has taken a plea that the complaint is time barred. We

must say at once that the complaint is not time barred.

Since, the letter in response to the RTI application had

been sent to the complainant vide letter dated 12.03.10

that was the date when the fresh cause of action arose

in favour of the complainant for filing the present

complaint. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is not

time barred.

It is further argued in the written arguments by the OP

that the reliefs sought by the complainant cannot be

decided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection

Act and that the complainant is not a consumer as defined

U/s 2 (1) (d) of the said Act and also that there is no hiring

of service as defined in section 2 (1) (o) of the said Act. The

contention raised on behalf of the OP for the first time

seems to be very attractive but it does not carry any

weight. Jhuggi of the complainant had been demolished

in Lajpat Nagar and he was to be given an alternative plot

of 12 sq. yds. at Holambi Kalan, New Delhi for which the

complainant had also been made to deposit Rs.7000/- in

the office of the OP. Therefore, the OP had agreed to

provide service t