More than 23 years after he was allotted a flat, Vinod Kumar will finally be able to live in his own house. After his plea was turned down by the district forum, he knocked on the doors of the State Consumer Commission, seeking justice.
The State Consumer Commission has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot Kumar a plot as well as pay him Rs 4 lakh as compensation and litigation charges after the land agency cancelled his allotment made in 1991.
Asserting that the DDA failed to provide its services in a span of 23 years, judicial member
N P Kaushik ordered the DDA to allot a plot measuring 34 sqm to Kumar anywhere in Delhi as well as pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him and his family. The DDA was also asked to pay him Rs 1 lakh as litigation charges.
“In case, the DDA fails to pay compensation and litigation expenses within 30 days, it shall be liable to pay 10 per cent interest. In case, the DDA fails to allot the plot to him within the stipulated period, a penalty of Rs 1,000 per day shall be liable to be paid to Kumar,” Kaushik stated in his order.
Kumar had reportedly registered himself with the DDA in 1981 under the Rohini LIG Scheme. He was allotted a plot in 1991 and deposited the amount for the same. He tried to remain in touch with the DDA for the physical possession of the plot, but did not receive any letter from the agency informing him of the status of the allotment till 2003.
After he filed a series of complaints, the DDA eventually responded by saying that it had restored the registration for allotment of another plot in phase 3 or 4 of Rohini, subject to payment of restoration charges of
Rs 300 per sqm. After he accepted the offer, the DDA allotted Kumar a plot in Sector 16 in lieu of the old plot.
The DDA then demanded Kumar pay up premium apart from restoration charges.
Kumar filed a complaint against the DDA in December 2003, asking that he should be allotted the plot at old rates. However, the DDA sent him a showcause notice in 2004 that since he had failed to pay the first instalment of premium, his allotment would stand withdrawn and registration cancelled.
In its order, the court observed that Kumar