did not default on making payments at any time. Moreover, the DDA had not replied to his letters.
The assistant director of the agency had told him that the documents he submitted were not traceable in their office. The complainant was verbally informed that his earlier allotment was cancelled on account of non-payment of the balance amount.
“DDA has failed to establish if there was any default on part of Kumar in making payments. Controversy regarding allotment of the old plot came to an end when the DDA offered the new plot on payment of restoration charges, which Kumar accepted. Now, the question arises whether the DDA is justified in asking for premium on the allotment of the new plot. It was DDA’s responsibility to state in the offer letter if it wished to charge the said premium. No such offer was made by the DDA while inviting his acceptance,” Kaushik said.
Ruling that it was not permissible for the DDA to come up with a letter later demanding the premium, Kaushik added that the DDA was merely rectifying its error as the old plot was not available with it when the complainant furnished his documents for the second time to DDA on its demand. “The demand for premium, therefore, is not justified.”