Car, furniture of DDA officials to be attached
Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Tribune news service
Chandigarh, October 13
Taking non-compliance of the order seriously, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT of Chandigarh, has issued directions to the District Magistrate, New Delhi, to attach the official cars of the Director and the Deputy Director of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the furniture/articles lying in their offices.
The commission further ordered to put the cars and office articles to auction to recover the decreetal amount of Rs 1,08,47,305.47 as arrears of land revenue. Besides, the commission also directed that the presence of Harish Kumar, Director, and Brij Mohan Gupta, Deputy Director, be secured through bailable warrants of arrest in the sum of Rs50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount for the next date of hearing.
The commission has issued the order on the execution of a petition filed by a consumer, Bhupinder Nagpal, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the enforcement of the order passed by the commission in May 2021.
Holding the DDA guilty of deficiency of service, the commission directed the authority to refund Rs 60,94,941 to Nagpal along with 12 per cent interest. It also directed the DDA to pay a compensation of Rs1.50 lakh for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs33,000 for the cost of litigation.
Nagpal, a resident of Sector 35, Chandigarh, approached the commission after he found that the DDA failed to provide him the flat with all facilities as promised. Nagpal said he applied for the allotment of the flat in the DDA Housing Scheme 2014 and was allotted an MIG flat in Narela. He deposited Rs59,94,941 on July 1, 2015, but was shocked to know that the flat was offered in an inhabitable condition.
The commission has given two-month time for the DDA to refund the amount, but it failed to comply with the order.Justice
Raj Shekhar Attri, president, Padma Pandey and Rajesh Kumar Arya, both members of the commission, in the order say the decree holder is suffering for the past three years but the judgment debtors have failed to comply with the order and pay the decreetal amount to the decree holders. Though appeal is pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the counsel for the judgment debtors conceded that no stay order has been passed.
“After going through the record and in view of law laid down by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the cases of Rajnish Kumar Rohatgi, a prima facie case is made out to summon the judgment debtors to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, we are of the view that this execution application be treated as a complaint and it be tried as a summons case.
“Let the presence of Harish Kumar, Director, and Brij Mohan Gupta, Deputy Director, Delhi Development Authority, be secured through bailable warrants of arrest in the sum of Rs50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount for the next date of hearing, so that substance of accusation under the provisions of Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be stated to them and they can be prosecuted under the provisions of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
Why complainant felt cheated by DDA
Nagpal, a resident of Sector 35, Chandigarh, approached the commission after he found that the DDA failed to provide him the flat with all facilities as promised. Nagpal said he applied for the allotment of the flat in the DDA Housing Scheme-2014 and was allotted an MIG flat in Narela. He deposited Rs59,94,941 on July 1, 2015, but was shocked to know that the flat was offered in an inhabitable condition.
