Forum tells DDA to pay ₹2 lakh to complainant

Delh

Forum tells DDA to pay ₹2 lakh to complainant

more-in

For cancelling an allotment letter on ‘invalid grounds’

Dismissing an appeal moved by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum here has directed the urban body to compensate the complainant by paying over ₹2 lakh after it was alleged that the DDA had cancelled an allotment letter on “invalid grounds”.

Upholding an order passed by a district consumer forum here, the State consumer panel said, “On a careful perusal of the records and judicial pronouncements made, I am of the considered view that the service of the allotment letter was not validly done and the direction of the district forum for the refund of the registration amount cannot be faulted with.”

“…the appeal [of DDA] cannot be accepted and is accordingly dismissed. Orders of the district forum are upheld,” the consumer forum said.

The directions came when the urban body challenged an order passed by a district forum that had directed the urban body to refund the registration fee of ₹1,500 in addition to a compensation of ₹2 lakh.

The urban body had challenged the district forum order stating that “all possible steps to communicate to the complainant” had been taken by the DDA.

“Cancellation of allotment has been done only after exhausting all the avenues available to issue the letter and when nothing was done in the matter of depositing the amount, the cancellation was done,” the DDA had contended.

No intimation

However, dismissing contentions put forth by the urban body, the consumer panel held, “Having regard to the law laid down, the inevitable and inescapable conclusion is that no intimation regarding allotment of flat has been validly reached...specific notices are required to be served.”

Further, the consumer panel added, “If that be the case, the entire edifice built by the DDA in support of their claim, falls to the ground, since no letter allotting the flat reached, nor valid notice, a condition precedent before cancellation of allotment was ever issued. Consequently, the contention of DDA raised on the subject is rejected.”

Next Story