AWHO cheats and fails to pay penalty imposed by the State Consumer Commission

Dear friends,
This is to acquaint you with the latest development in the case regarding shortfall in the area of flats being provided by AWHO.
Many of you be aware of the fact that the actual size of the flats being built by the AWHO is smaller than what is mentioned in the documents. This is done by a simple stratagem – the entire area (100%) of the balconies is included in the covered area (also called super area) of the flat. The AWHO sometimes calls it plinth area, which is actually less than the super area, which includes common areas such as ventilation. In Devinder Vihar, Sector 56, Gurgaon, where I was allotted a Economy B type flat, the Technical Brochure shows the Plinth Area as 1442 Sq ft. In the Possession Certificate, the Super Area was mentioned as 1412 Sq ft. In the conveyance deed neither ‘plinth’ or ‘super’ are used - it just mentions that the area is 1412 Sq. ft.
I measured the actual sizes of all rooms and found that there is a difference between the figures given by AWHO and the actual dimensions. There was considerable difference, since AWHO had counted 100% of the balconies area in the plinth area instead of 50%, as given in E-in-C’s Technical Instruction No. 13 of 1970. In fact, all builders, including the AFNHB, include only 50%.
I had filed a case in 2003 in the Delhi State Consumer Commission against the AWHO for the shortfall in the covered area. Using the RTI Act, 2005, I was able to get the sanctioned building plans and other documents from the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), which confirmed that the covered area is just 1269 sq. ft. There is thus a shortfall of 144 sq. ft. or more than 10%. After this was produced in the State Commission, in a judgment delivered on 20/01/2009, the Commission ordered the AWHO to refund Rs 25,000 for the shortfall, in addition to a penalty of Rs 50,000. The AWHO did not comply with the order. More than six months after this, it filed an appeal in the National Consumer Commission. Since the time limit of 30 days was over, it forged the date. Copies of the order were issued to both parties on 25/3/2009. The figure 3 was altered to look like 8, and the date became 25/8/2009. This was confirmed by State Commission in response to an RTI application, and was brought to the notice of the National Commission. The final hearing in the National Commission was held on 29/7/ 2010. However, for some reason the order was reserved. After several visits to the National Commission, I got fed up and filed an RTI application on 11/11/ 2010. Soon after this, the National Commission issued an order. It set aside the judgment of the State Commission. It made no mention of the forgery committed buy the AWHO.
In case the National Commission had upheld the order of the State Commission, this would resulted in similar cases filed by thousands of other allottees who have purchased flats from the AWHO, which would have had to pay crores of rupees as compensation. This was submitted by the counsel for AWHO in the State Commission, which was initially inclined to ask the AWHO to pay the cost of the proportionate short fall (10%), which was coming to about Rs. 1 lac. After this submission, it modified its order and reduced the compensation to 25,000. The same reason was submitted by the counsel for AWHO in the National Commission also. Naturally, the AWHO would go to any extend to avoid this. I have a feeling that AWHO has managed to do this using unfair means. After the recent comments of Supreme Court regarding ‘uncle judges’ in the Allahabad High Court and the submission filed by Shanti Bhushan naming corrupt judges even in the Supreme Court, nothing can be disbelieved.
I intend filing a review petition in the National Commission itself, but I have doubts if it will bear any fruit. The answer lies in filing a petition in the Supreme Court. As you may be aware, I am already fighting several cases in the lower courts and the High Court stemming from the cases filed against me by CBI, at the behest of RAW. This was the result of my book INDIA’S EXTERNAL INTELLIGENCE – SECRETS OF THE RESEARCH AND ANALAYSIS WING (RAW)/, which exposed corruption in the intelligence agency. I have neither the energy nor the resources to take on the litigation in the Supreme Court against AWHO on my own. I would request others who have the time, energy and resources to take it on. Perhaps we can all contribute and hire a good lawyer to do this for us, as is being done for the OROP and disability pension cases.
Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)
AWHO Demystified
Is there any Veteran Organisation which can take on the AWHO to fight for the legitimate rights and welfare of its members?