BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
ITO, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI
.
COMPLAINT NO. ______ OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF :SHRI M.N. SINGH
S/O SHRI T.N. SINGH
R/O C-6/52, Safdarjung Development Area,
……….COMPLAINANT
New Delhi-110016
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUHORITY
VIKAS SADAN, I.N.A.
NEW DELHI-110003
…RESPONDENT/OP
Through its Chairman
INDEX OF PAPERS
PARTICULARS
SL.NO.
NO. OF
PAGES
1
LIST OF DATES & EVENTS
2.
MEMO OF PARTIES
3
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER
A
1 TO
PROTECTION ACT, 1986 with AFFIDAVIT
4
VAKALATNAMA
PLACE :- NEW DELHI
DATE :-
-08-20145
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
COUNSEL
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
ITO, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
COMPLAINT NO. ______ OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF :……….COMPLAINANT
SHRI M.N. SINGH
VERSUS
…RESPONDENT/OP
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUHORITY
MEMO OF PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF :SHRI M.N. SINGH
S/O SHRI T.N. SINGH
R/O C-6/52 Safdarjung Development Area,
……….COMPLAINANT
New Delhi-110016
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUHORITY
VIKAS SADAN, I.N.A.
NEW DELHI-110003 through its
Chairman
NEW DELHI
Dated ____ -08-2015.
…RESPONDENT/OP
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ITO, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
COMPLAINT NO. ______ OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF :SHRI M.N. SINGH
S/O SHRI T.N. SINGH
R/O C-6/52 Safdarjung Development Area,
……….COMPLAINANT
New Delhi-110016
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUHORITY
VIKAS SADAN, I.N.A.
…RESPONDENT/OP
NEW DELHI-110003
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
THE COMPLAINANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS HEREUNDER THE
BRIEF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADS TO SUCH GRIEVENCES:
1.
That the complainant is a law abiding citizen of India and bonafide resident
of Delhi.
2.
That on 4-12-1986, the Respondent executed a Perpetual
Lease Deed in favour of one Mohd Idrish, in respect of plot No. 52 of
Block no. C-6 in the lay out plan of Safdarjung Residential Scheme
measuring 250.22 sq. yards in area. A Copy of the said perpetual lease
Deed is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure –A.
3.
That on 21-12-1986, the mother of complainant Smt Sukhwant Kaur needed
a Residential House for herself and as such purchased the said plot from
Mohd Idrish and got possession of the plot from him. The copies of the said
sale agreement and Power of Attorney, etc. are annexed herewith an
marked as Annexure-B (Colly.).
4.
That Smt. Sukwant Kaur could not arrange funds for constructing the house
within the time permitted as such she collaborated with a builder for the
construction of the said house.
5.
That after completing the construction in 1991-92, the builder handed over
possession of the basement and the ground floor to the said Smt. Sukvinder
Kaur in terms of collaboration agreement and sold the first floor to one, Mrs.
Nirmala Mirchandani and the second floor to one, Mr R.K. Dixit. Since then
the complainant and the said persons with their families are residing in the
said Residential house.
6.
That no trade or business or commercial activity of any kind has ever been
carried on in the said Property by any of the said Owners / Occupiers. The
entire building is being used for residential purpose only.
7.
That the complainant, etc. are regularly paying the ground rent payable in
terms of lease deed and are paying the Property Taxes to MCD for the
basement and ground floor, which are duly mutated in their name.. There is
no arrear due and payable by the complainant / his mother to respondent or
MCD in terms of ground rent or house tax.
8.
That in the year 1993 father of complainant who was serving as a Judge of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court, demitted office. He went to Guwahati and
stayed there for some time and later came to Delhi. He brought with him his
law books from Guwahati, which he had acquired during his practice in High
Court there and the same were kept in the basement of the above property
in question. He also used to sit in the basement occasionally and used to
meet advocates who came for seeking his advice/guidance. This user was
duly permitted under the Master Plan of Delhi and the use of a portion of the
Residential Property by professionals for their Office is duly permitted and
recognised under Clause 10 of Chapter 2 of the Master Plan of Delhi, 1990 (
Perspective 2001).
9.
That on 27/12/2002, the mother of the Complainant submitted an application
jointly to the respondent for conversion of the said ground floor and
basement into freehold. The said Smt. Sukhwant Kaur further deposited the
requisite Conversion fee of Rs 2,14,948/-. A Copy of the said Challan is
annexed hereto as ANNEXURE – C.
10. That in response to the said Application for Conversion, the mother of the
complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 17/06/2003 from the
respondent addressed to lease holder, i.e., Mohd Idrish stating therein that
though the lease of the plot had been cancelled on 12/11/2002, the same
was restored by the competent authority “subject to payment of restoration
charges, misuse charges, ground rent and other outstanding dues if any,
which will be intimated in due course”. A Copy thereof is annexed hereto as
ANNEXURE ______
11. That since no further communication, as contemplated was received for a
long time, the complainant personally called at the office of the Respondent
at Vikas Sadan to attend the Public Hearing.
12. That on 13-10-2003, during the course of public hearing given by the
Assistant director, DDA, the Complainant came to know that heavy penalty
was being proposed to be levied for allegedly
using the premises for
commercial purpose despite the fact that all three floors of the premises
were in occupation of the members of the three families and the premises
was used for residential purpose.
13. That on 15/10/2003, the complainant
accordingly wrote a letter to the
Assistant Director stating categorically that no commercial activity was ever
carried on in the premises concerned and that the basement was under the
use of his father, viz., Justice ( Retd.) Dr. T. N. Singh, where he used to
have meetings with junior lawyers and also used the space for storing the
Library books bought by him from Guwahati. In fact with the said letter he
enclosed in original, the letter addressed by his father to the Assistant
Director of the respondent supporting the statement made in his letter dated
15/10/2003 by the complainant. Copies of said are annexed as Annexure
______ respectively.
14. That strangely enough, the complainant, his mother and father or Mr. Mohd.
Idrish received no reply to their letter, which led them to believe that their
request to drop the proposal for levy of penalty was accepted.
15. However after a lapse of about seven months, they received a letter dated
18/05/2004 from the Deputy Director of the respondent asking them to
deposit Rs 3,000 as restoration charges and Rs 42,07,684/- as “provisional
misuse charges” totally ignoring and overlooking and not dealing with the
contention raised by the complainant in their letter dated 15/10/2003.
16. That vide her letter dated 3-6-2-4, the mother of complainant duly replied to
the respondent’s said letter reiterating that there was no misuse and
requested them to have a resurvey be made for judicious determination of
the question of misuse. Copies of the aforementioned letters dated
18/05/2004 and 3/06/2004 are annexed as annexure G & H respectively.
17. That the “restoration charges” of Rs 3,000/- as per demand made in the
aforementioned letter dated 18/05/2004 was duly deposited on 30/05/2004
and the outstanding “Ground rent” from 15/01/2003 to 14/01/2005 was also
deposited on 16/5/2005. The copies of the said Deposit Challans are
annexed hereto as ANNEXURES _____ and _____.
18. That on 1/6/2005, the mother of complainant again wrote a letter to the
Deputy Director of the respondent to inform him accordingly regarding due
compliance was made of the letter dated18/5/2004 and enclosed the third
copy challan. A Copy of the said Challan is annexed herewith as Annexure
I.
19. That the complainant and his mother did not receive any reply to their letter
dated 1/6/2005.
20. That suddenly on 20/07/2005 the complainant received one letter addressed
to the complainant as well as other co owners for conversion from Asst.
Director, LSB (Resdl.), which asked them to furnish receipts / challans of up
to date payment of ground rent as well as of Rs 42,07,684 as misuse charge
and of Rs 5753/- on account of composition fee for belated construction of
the house. To the said letter mother of the complainant sent her reply vide
letter dated 18/08/2005 and she received a reply dated 17-10-2005 to their
said letter from the Deputy Director of respondent , which was addressed
jointly to all co owners.
21. That in that letter dated 17/10/2005, only the demand for payment was
reiterated by the respondent without dealing with any contentions raised by
the complainant repeatedly denying the liability for payment of misuse
charges. Accordingly in her reply dated 27/10/2005 to the said letter, mother
of the complainant informed the Deputy Director of the respondent that she
was taking appropriate action for redressal of her grievance after collecting
relevant information for which an application was filed under RTI ACT on
21/10/2005. She also requested that processing of her application for
conversion be kept in abeyance till the issue of misuse charges was
satisfactorily resolved. Copies of said letters dated _______, _______,
______ and ______ are annexed as Annexure J, K, L & M respectively.
22. That while replying to the said letter of the mother of the complainant, It was
disclosed by the Respondent for the first time vide his letter dated
23/11/2005 that in January 1998, the field staff visited the premises and
noticed in the basement that an office of one, Chronicle Publication Pvt.
Ltd.
was running and that the show cause notices were issued on
16/03/2001 and 6/6/2002 but no response was received.
23. That the mother of the complainant was shocked to receive the said letter
and vide her letter dated ______denied of receiving those Show Cause
Notices in categorical terms. Mother of the complainant also categorically
stated that she had no knowledge of any inspection or visit made to the
premises by the so called field staff. She also contested the correctness of
the report of the field staff that the basement was ever used for the office of
any Chronicle Publication Pvt Ltd. She requested accordingly copies to be
furnished to her of the relevant notices and of the report of the field staff. A
Copy of the said Letter dated _________ is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE
______.______
24.
That on 14/01/2006 the mother of the Complainant wrote another letter to
the respondent repeating her request for copies of the relevant document to
be furnished to her and also the whereabouts to be informed to her of M/S
Chronicle publication Pvt. Ltd. to enable her to ascertain from them correct
facts about their alleged use for office purposes in the basement of the
premises in question. On 10/02/2006, complainant received letter no. F27(90)/80/LAB (R) DDA/1084 dated 30/01/2006 from the Deputy Director of
the respondent repeating the demand for payment of misuse charges.
Copies of letter dated 23/11/2005, 5/12/2005, 14/01/2006 and 30/1/2006 are
annexed hereto as ANNEXURES - N, O, P, and Q respectively.
25. That in the third week of January 2006, when the complainant’s father
visited Delhi to meet his wife and the ailing grand daughter, he discussed
this issue then only she came to know that her husband, father of
complainant namely Dr. T.N. singh allowed one of his friend Shri N.N. Ojha,
who already had his press and office at Okhla and had his publication firm to
use a part of his basement as store temporarily for few months as friendly
gesture without any monetary consideration in the bonafide belief that the
basement could be legitimately used for storage purpose. Then only the
complainant managed to trace the where about of said Shri Ojha and his
firm.
26. That thereafter on 21-1-2006, the complainant wrote a letter dated
21/01/2006 to the said firm, i.e., M/S Chronicle Publication Pvt. Ltd.. The
complainant got reply vide letter dated 30/1/2006 from the said firm wherein
they acknowledge that they use the said basement for storage purpose for a
period of five months only. Copies of letter dated 21/01/2006 and
30/01/2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure R & S.
27. That however the respondent did not provide the copies of any relevant
documents as requested by the complainant, the complainant’s mother as
well as father also submitted one affidavit about the correct facts relevant to
the issue of misuse, but the respondent did not consider the same. Copies
of affidavit are annexed herewith as Annexure T.
28. That on 15/02/2006, the complainant submitted a representation to the
respondent for review of the decision saddling them with the huge liability of
Rs 42 lakhs as misuse charges without hearing them at any stage and they
submitted with the said representation with a prayer for proper and regular
hearing to be given to them on the submissions made on facts and law in
representation. Having received no satisfactory response, inspite of
repeated reminders, complainant’s mother filed one RTI application to elicit
relevant information but the same was refused.
29. That she filed an appeal against the said Order of Refusal, wherein
directions were made on 14/11/2006 to the concerned officer to furnish the
information as per RTI application.
30. That accordingly the respondent on 17/11/2006 sent reply and then for the
first time complainant got the copy of the order dated ______ passed in
respect of the “misuse charges” and finally the stand of respondent was
disclosed. The said Order dated _______ came to the knowledge of the
Complainant only on 17-11-2006 for the first time. Not only that the said
order was passed behind the back of the Complainant, his mother and Mr.
Mohd. Idrish, it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to
any of them and was thus against the rules of natural justice.
31. That after receiving the order when the complainant confronted the
respondent that there was no basis disclosed for the said Order and that the
said Order was never communicated. Surprisingly the respondent in their
letter dated 30/11/2006 stated that the order was passed on the basis of the
undated written undertaking of Mohd Idrish, who had not played any role in
any matter at any time in respect of the plot in question after he had
delivered possession thereof on 21/12/1986 to the mother of the
complainant and had received from her the full consideration by executing in
her favour the agreement to sell, irrevocable general and special power of
attorney. Mohd Idrish ceased to have any subsisting interesting the property
since 21/12/1986 and he never exercised any right in any manner on the
said plot. The enquiring with respect to respondent’s claim that Mohd.Idrish
had written a letter on 03-02-2003 for restoration of the lease led to the
startling disclosure that he was already dead.
32.
However the complainant again wrote a letter to the respondent on
6/12/2006 to provide the copy of alleged written undertaking of Mohd Idrish.
The complainant repeated their request vide letter dated 26/12/2006. After
which a reply dated 21/2/2006 was received from the respondent wherein
the complainant noticed that her request was again ignored. Later, when
copy of the said written undertaking was furnished to the complainant,
opinion of hand writing expert was obtained and it was revealed that the
signature on the said letter dated 03-02-2006 was forged. The report dated
06-08-2007 of Dr.M.A.Ali, Forensic Document Consultant, was filed in the
High Court when the illegal demand of misuse charges was challenged in
W.P.(c)No.1211/2007. It established the criminal conspiracy of the officials
of the respondent to deny hearing to the complainant and her mother who
were entitled to be heard in all matters by virtue of their right acquired by
them by owning and possessing the plot and structures for more than 20
years.
33. That indeed even after when the complainant had submitted the application
for conversion on 20/02/2002, admittedly, no notice of any proceedings to
which they were entitled in terms of clause VII of the lease was ever
addressed to or served on them although they were “persons claiming right
to the residential plot” in terms of clause VII. They were never informed
about the proceedings initiated and the pendency thereof at any time though
the respondent claimed that the lease had been cancelled on 12/11/2002.
34.
On 30/1/2006 copy was furnished to the complainant of the said letter of
cancellation dated 12/11/2002 in which it was mentioned and threatened
that possession would be taken of the plot together with buildings and
structures on 29/11/2002, but neither on that date nor on any subsequent
date any official of the respondent ever visited the premises or took any
action pursuant to the alleged order of cancellation of Lease.
35. That on 15/02/2006, the complainant submitted a representation to the
respondent for review of the decision of levying the misuse charges on the
complainant without hearing them at any stage and they prayed for proper
and regular hearing to be given to them on the submissions made on facts
and law. But the complainant did not receive any reply.
36. That in view of the highly obstinate and recalcitrant approach of the
respondents, the complainant filed a W.P. (C) 1211/2007 before the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi for setting aside of the misuse fees and to
direct the respondent to convert the said premises from lease hold to
freehold.
37. That the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi disposed off the said WP
(C) no. 1211/2007 on 21/07/2010 on the basis of submissions of
respondent/ DDA relying on their own policy dated 26/10/2010. The
Respondent/DDA in a way accepted the grievance of the complainant that
the levy of alleged misuse charges was arbitrary and without hearing the
complainant, where by the Hon’ble high Court of Delhi directed the DDA to
treat the writ petition as representation of the complainant and pass a fresh
order and pass a fresh order regarding the amount of misuse charges
payable by the complainant in respect of property in question in terms of its
latest policy on the subject dated 26/03/2010.
Copy of order dated
21/07/2010 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is annexed herewith as
Annexure U and a copy of the Circular dated 26/03/2010 is annexed
herewith as Annexure V.
38. Thereafter the complainant appeared before the respondent and filed written
submission requesting local inspection in terms of the circular dated
26/03/2010 for the final disposal of the representation. The officers of
respondent conducted site inspection on the premises on 6/8/2010 and the
same was informed to the respondent vide letter dated 06/08/2010 and a
copy of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure - W.
39. That on 15-4-2011, the complainant filed an application under Right to
information Act, 2005 asking for a copy of the site inspection report and the
order passed thereon and other orders passed in the matter for the final
disposal of the matter. The respondent vide its letter dated 6/6/2011
informed the complainant that “the file is being sent to the finance wing for
working out the dues of misuse charges etc.”, a copy of the said Letter
dated 6-6-2011 is annexed herewith as Annexure X.
40.
The complainant in response to the letter dated 6/6/2011 issued by the
respondent protested to respondent stating that neither the copy of
inspection report was furnished to him nor any opportunity to make any
submission with respect thereto was given to him.
41.
hat despite various letters, reminders and application and appeal
under right to information Act, respondent did not comply with the order
of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi , and as such the
complainant was constrained to file contempt petition before the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court against the arbitrary demand dated 09-10-2013, of Rs
61,55,797/- as misuse for the period, 01-01-1998 to 31-1-03. As a result of
orders passed by Hon’ble High Court in successive Contempt Petitions, the
respondent passed subsequently, on 18-09-2014, raising a demand of Rs.
25,58,253/- said to have been passed on the basis on “revised policy of
misuse dated 22-04-2014, in brazen violation of the direction made by
Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 21-07-2010, passed in W.P.(c)
no.1211/2007, making now a new case for the first time on the basis of few
unauthenticated and irrelevant photographs. Subsequently, the respondent
arbitrarily raised the demand to Rs. 68,91,294/- vide its letter dated 13-072015.
42. That the order dated 18-09-2014 saddling a liability of Rs.25,58,253/- ____
as Misuse charges on the complainant and the subsequent arbitrary
demand dated 13-07-2015, which is bereft of reasons,
manifests
performance merely of ministerial act of calculation on the basis of report
dated 5/8/2003 of the field staff. The fact that the allegation of misuse being
denied in writing numerous time starting from 15/10/2003 w5arranted an
enquiry and not calculation merely has been totally ignored and overlooked.
The said Order amounts to an Unfair Trade Practice at the hands of the
Officers of the Respondent and is Deficiency in Service, which calls for
action on the part of this Hon’ble Commission.
43. That the complainant beg to submit that at no time before the initial levy
and demand of the misuse charges of Rs.42, ____ lakh, any notice was
issued to or delivered to the complainant to show cause against the
proposed levy. The impugned Levy is opposed to the Rules of Natural
Justice and is liable to be ignored and / or quashed.
44. That the complainant further beg to submit that the issue cannot be decided
on the basis of any report of the field staff in respect of the inspection
allegedly done behind the back of the Complainant and the copy whereof
was never supplied or made available to the complainant inspite of various
requests and demands made by him as already stated above.
45. That the complainant submit that the use of a part of basement for a few
months on a temporary basis, intermittently for storage in transit does not
amount to “misuse” of the basement attracting penalty in as much as the
use was for “storage”. The Basement is meant for Storage purpose and
does not amount to misuse by any cannon of law.
46. That the complainant states that the copy of report dated 5/8/2003 of the
field staff supplied to the complainant on 10/1/2006 clearly manifest that levy
of misuse charges from 1998 to 2003 was purely speculative and was
based on no evidence. It was categorically stated in the said report that
there was no “documentary evidence”
about the period of the alleged
misuse, which obviously was vitiated by delay and laches.
47. That the complainant submits that the demand of Rs 68,91,294/- raised
against the complainant as misuse charges amounts to unfair trade practice
and is as such null and void. It is further submitted that complainant have no
means to pay the huge demand which is on the face of it illegal, arbitrary
and unconscionable. The complainant can not be dispossessed for his
inability to make payment of the illegal demand violates complainant’s right
to shelter guaranteed under Art 21 of the Constitution.
48. That the respondent acted illegally and without jurisdiction in denying the
complainant post decisional hearing by refusing to take into consideration
the material submitted for review of the demand of misuse charges.
49. That the respondent acted illegally and without jurisdiction in dealing with
and deciding the representation which was submitted to the respondent
challenging the decision acts and actions of respondent and other officers
who were subordinates of respondent.
That the complainant having submitted with their representation, affidavits and
relevant and credible material with regard to the fact that M/S Chronicle
Publications were allowed to use a portion of the basement for storage in transit
for a period of only five months as a friendly gesture and without any monetary
consideration, the report of the field staff that the entire basement was being
used as office of M/S Chronicle Publication for a period of five years was
untenable and totally unsupported by any evidence and thus
50. demand raised against the complainant was liable to be quashed. The letter
dated 30/01/2006 written by Shri N.N. Ojha, Managing Director of M/S
Chronicle publication in reply to the letter of complainant dated 21/1/2006
clearly established that the said firm had its office at Okhla since 1998 and
not in the basement of the premises in question.
53. That the respondent ,Delhi Development Authority is constituted under Delhi Development
Act 1957 and is vested with the jurisdiction to exercise sole authority to determine user of land
building in NCR region and is also saddled with the obligation to provide service to the people of
the nature of housing facilities to build their own houses on the plots allotted on leases and
conversion thereof into freeholds, as per policies approved from time to time by the Central Govt.
And/or the Lt.Governor of Delhi. In all matters relating to discharge of its Constitutionally
obligations it is mandated to act fairly with the allottees in due compliance with provisions of Act,
Rules and Byeaws made thereunder and the statutory leases granted. All such acts of the
respondent and its officers and staff as are found to be done arbitrarily,whimsically,capciciously,
are liable to be struck own.
51. That the Opposite Party being a service provider is involved in unfair trade
practice as they have miserably failed to provide service as promised by
them under a Lease contract. The admitted position on facts is that the
Opposite Party did not serve any notice or order in accordance with the
procedure contemplated in law under specific provisions of the Lease Deed.
For imposing on the petitioner misuse charge they created evidence
rendering the demand patently illegal.They have further adopted unfair
method or deceptive practice such as falsely represents that the services
are of a particular standard, quality or grade while soliciting for the policy
which has not been fulfilled on one pretext or other.
52. The complainant had received the illegal order from opposite party about the
alleged huge demand to the tune of Rs.68,91,294/ in the form of misuse
charges from the respondent and they exercised their legal remedies and
the complaint has been filed before this tribunal as such it is within period of
limitation.
53. That the opposite parties are located within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Forum. The pecuniary jurisdiction falls within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Forum.
54. That when the all the efforts of the complainant with regard to settlement of
the claim goes in vain then the complainant has no other option except to
prefer this complaint before this Hon’ble Forum for the redressal of their
grievance.
55. That the complainant have no other speedy and efficacious remedy
available to them but to approach this Hon’ble forum
56. That the complainant has not filed any other complaint before this Hon’ble
Commission or before any other court for the same relief.
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above it is most
respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble Forum to kindly :-
a.
Declare the acts of the respondent in imposing the penalty for alleged
misuse of plot no. C-6/52, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi110016 as malafide, arbitrary, capricious and against all canons of justice
and quash the demand, being an Unfair Trade Practice; and
b.
Direct the respondent to grant without hindrance and delay conversion of
lease hold plot no. C-6/52 Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi110016 from lease hold to freehold as per application filed in terms of the
government policy and the requisite fee deposited therefor, the delay
wherein amounts to deficiency in service;
c.
Quash the illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs. 68,91,294.00 for alleged mis
user charges communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated ----- by
respondent, being a blatently unfair Trade Practice;
d.
Allow damages for causing harassment, business loss due to negligence
of the opposite parties to the extent of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Lakh Only) and Pass an order in favour of the complainant and against the
Opposite Parties for deficiency of service as well as for adopting unfair
trade practice.
(?)Thus
the
Complainant
is
entitled
to
a
total
amount
of
Rs.93,91,294.00, being Rs.68,91,294.00 + Rs.25,00,000.00 ) and pray
to this Hon’ble Commission to award the same; and to
e.
Allow the Cost of Litigation and pass an order in favour of the complainant
and against the Opposite Parties with a direction to the Opposite Parties to
pay the litigation cost.
f.
Allow pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from
the date of submitting the present complaint till the date of payment and
pass an order in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite
Parties in this regard.
g.
Pass such further order/orders as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the
justice.
AND
Pass interim order staying the demand made by the respondent
vide letter dated-13-7-2015------ asking the petitioner to deposit within 3
months Rs.68,91,294/-.
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
COUNSEL
PLACE : NEW DELHI
DATE :
-10-2014
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ITO, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
COMPLAINT NO. ______ OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF :……….COMPLAINANT
SHRI M.N. SINGH
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUHORITY
…RESPONDENT/OP
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. M.N.singh, S/o Shri T.N. Singh R/O C-6/52, Safdarjung Development Area.
New Delhi-110016, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.
That the above named deponent is the complainant and is fully conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the case and he is competent enough
to swear this affidavit.
2.
That the accompanying Complaint under Section 12 of consumer
Protection Act has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and
the contents of the same are true and correct.
3.
That the Annexure already filed along with the complaint are true Copies of
their respective Originals and be treated as part and parcel of this Affidavit
and the accompanying Complaint and same are not repeated and refilled
for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this …… of August, 2015 that the contents of para 1 to 3
of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and on the
basis of the records maintained in the office and nothing material has been
concealed there from.
DEPONENT