Satpal Singh Vs. Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 4/ 1622/2017 -Wel/CD/3557-58 | Dated: 27.12.2017

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/ 1622/2017 -Wel/CD/3557-58                                   Dated: 27.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Satpal Singh,

Plot No. 13, MCD Flats, Phase-II,

Nimdi Cololny, Delhi-110052.                                                  .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Dr.S.P.M. Civic Centre,

New Delhi-110002.                                                                               …...…Respondent

Date of hearing:         11.12.2017

Present                        Sh. Satpal Singh, Complainant.

Sh. B.R. Meena, S.O. Sh. Dinesh Ram, S.I., Sh. R. Purshottam, T.R., LDC on behalf of  Respondent.

ORDER

                 

The above named complainant, a person with 90% locomoter disability vide his complaint dated 11.04.2017 submitted that he was appointed as Assistant Librarian on 08.11.2010 in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200/- (GP Rs. 2400/-) whereas the Grade Pay of the post is Rs. 4200/-.  Other Assistant Librarians were getting Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- after implementation of 6^th CPC.  As per the information obtained by him under the RTI, the Additional Director / PIO, North DMC vide letter No. D/ADE/Co-Ord./HQ/2014/1168 dated 30.01.2014 informed that Sh. Shiv Kumar Kapil, Narela Zone, Assistant Librarian was in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- plus Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-  and the complainant was also in the post of Assistant Librarian in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20800+ Grade Pay Rs. 2400/-.  The complainant also enclosed the pay fixation order in respect of Sh. Shivkumar Kapil, Assistant Librarian which indicates his GP as Rs. 4600/-.  The complainant submitted that he was working in the post of Assistant Librarian for the last seven years yet his request has not been considered.  He had requested for grant of GP of Rs. 4200/- to the Commissioner, North DMC on 04.01.2014 which was received on 07.01.2014 however, he has not been granted his entitled GP till date. He requested that he be given grade pay of Rs. 4200/- from the date of  his appointment as Assistant Librarian w.e.f. 08.11.2010 and promoted  to the next higher post.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated  12.06.2017 followed by reminder  dated 18.07.2017.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled  on 24.10.2017. 

3.      During the hearing on 24.10.2017 none appeared on behalf  of the respondent. It was observed that the notice of hearing dated 12.06.2017 was sent to Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation by Speed Post alongwith the enclosures i.e. the copy of the complaint filed by Sh. Satpal Singh. However, the P.S. in North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC) on 15.06.2017 recorded in the original notice that “enclosures have not been received” and therefore he decided to return the said original notice to the Dy.Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on the same day i.e. 15.06.2017.  Surprisingly, the envelope  in which the original Notice was received back on 28.06.2017 bore Speed Post Diary No. 926 dated 12.06.2017.  After receiving back the said original notice,  the enclosures containing 13 pages alongwith a copy of the Notice dated 12.06.2017 was again sent to North DMC vide this Court’s letter dated  18.07.2017.  However, still there was no response. That is how the hearing came to be scheduled on 24.10.2017.

4.      The concern of this Court that neither any response was received nor any one appeared to represent the Commissioner, North DMC on 24.10.2017  was conveyed to the Commissioner, North DMC  and he was requested to look into the matter personally and ensure that the complainant who is a  persons with 90% disability was not deprived of his right.   The possibility of a deliberate attempt by someone to delay / avoid submission of reply or taking appropriate action on the complaint of Sh. Satpal Singh was also pointed out as it is unusual for any recipient to return the original notice to the sender merely on the ground that the enclosures are not received.  Commissioner, North DMC was further requested to investigate the matter.

5.      The provision of Section 93 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which provides for punishment for failure to furnish information which may extend to Rs. 25000/- in respect of each offence  and in case of continued failure or refusal,  with further fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/- for each day of continued failure or refusal was also brought to the notice of Commissioner, North DMC vide record of proceedings dated 30.10.2017”.

6.      On the next date of hearing on 11.12.2017, representatives of the respondent submitted a letter dated 29.11.2017 as per which the complainant was appointed as School Attendant initially as daily wager and then regularised as such in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2260-60-3200 w.e.f. 01.04.1999.  He was appointed as Assistant Librarian in compliance of the judgement dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble CAT in TA No. 1040/2009  in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 plus Rs.2400/- as Grade Pay w.e.f. 08.11.2010  as per advice of the Finance Department.  His request for grant of Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- is under consideration.   A copy of the said letter was given to the complainant during the hearing as the respondent had not supplied a copy of the same to him.

7.      The complainant submitted that as per Office Order No. D./6559/DDE/Edn./HQ/Admn.2016 Dated 15.02.2016, the pay scale prescribed for primary school teachers would apply to Asstt. Teachers (Nursery / Physical) Art & Craft and Music as also to the Resource Assistants in CRC, R.K. Puram and Assistant Librarians of the Department. The complainant also submitted that there are four Assistant Librarians in North DMC including him. While all the three Assistant Librarians have been granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- from retrospective effect, he is being denied the benefit.  He further stated that an Assistant Librarian in South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) is also getting the grade pay of Rs. 4200/-.

8.      Representatives of the respondents confirmed that the pay scale of Primary School Teacher in North DMC is Rs. 4200/-. However, while the pay scales of teachers were upgraded,  the same was not done in the case of Assistant Librarians etc. They also added that the pay scales of all the Assistant Librarians are to be decided by the House as it involves upgradation of the pay scale of Assistant Librarian in North DMC.

9.      On Perusal of the record, it is prima facie seen that the complainant was appointed as Assistant Librarian in 2010 on the directions of Hon’ble CAT and was given the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- whereas as per Communication No.  D/ADE/R&E/918 Dated 14.08.2013, the Grade pay of Assistant Librarian is Rs. 4200/-.  If that be so and in light of the fact that the all other Assistant Librarians in North DMC and South DMC have been granted the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/-, denial of  the same to the complainant clearly amounts to discrimination as  the respondent has not given any cogent reason and supporting documents justifying continued deprivation of an entitlement to the complainant who holds the post of Assistant Librarian on equal basis with other Assistant Librarians in the same establishment.  

10.    In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to finalise the matter and grant the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- to the complainant on equal basis with other Assistant Librarians and pay the arrears due to him within a month from the date of receipt of this order and ensure that the complainant is not subjected to any kind of discrimination and harassment on the ground of his disability and because he was approached this  Court for redressal of his grievances.  He may also be considered for promotion to the next higher post if eligible as per the relevant rules and instructions of DoP&T within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

11.    I would like to reiterate that from the record perused during the hearing of this case, there were reasons to believe that the complainant’s case has been deliberately delayed at different stages.  It will be in the fitness of things for me to record my observation that the conduct and the conversation of the representatives appearing for the respondent with the complainant during the hearing was acrimonious and arrogant leaving the complainant frightened and scared of putting forth his submissions fearlessly in their presence. I,  therefore, recommend that the Commissioner, North DMC should personally look into the matter and peruse the relevant papers / files so that the decision in the matter is not delayed now and the complainant is not denied any benefit that he is entitled to under the rules and he is not made to run from pillar to post. It may also be ensured that the complainant is not subjected to any harassment.  The Action Taken Report be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this Order under intimation to the complainant as required under Section 81 of the Act.  

   The matter is disposed of accordingly.

  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27^th day of December,  2017.

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Bhola Dutt Sati Vs. Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare | Case No. 4/888/2015-Wel./CD/ 3514-15 | Dated: 26.12.2017

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/888/2015-Wel./CD/ 3514-15                           Dated: 26.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Bhola Dutt Sati,

RZ-09, Guru Harkishan Nagar,

Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.                                                ................ Petitioner

                                      Versus               

Secretary,

Department of Health & Family Welfare,

9^th Level, Delhi Secretariat,

I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.                                    ………...…Respondent

   ORDER

          A complaint dated 02.12.2014 and 07.01.2015 of Sh. Bhola Dutt Sati were received from the court of Chief Commissioner on 28.01.2015 regarding non issuance of disability certificate.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 03.02.2015.

3.      The respondent vide letter number NDCL/1315/2014. GBPH/PGC (FPGC/2014/Annex.I/GBPH/598 dated 12.02.2015.  submitted that the grievance was against Janakpuri Super Specialty Hospital as Social Welfare Department had earmarked it as Medical authority for issuance of disability certificate for the resident of West Delhi where the complainant resides.

4.      This case was referred to Janakpuri Hospital and then IBHAS for neuro psychological assessments but was refused one or other pretext.  The complainant also not cooperated.

5.      The complaint was again called to attend Neurological OPD at GBPH and was advised OT/PT/Neuropsychological assessments.  OT assessment releaved 9.8 % ADL lost of function.  A comprehensive reply was submitted by GB Pant Hospital dated 21.10.2015.

6.      The complainant was also contacted on his given telephone No.917503540938 on 06.12.2017 and was informed about the contents of the letter and that since the medical authority has not found him to be a person with disability, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings further.

8.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07^th day of December, 2017.    

(T.D. Dhariyal)

           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Paramjeet Kaur Sur Vs. Dte of Education | Case No. 4/1243/2016-Wel./CD/ 3512-13 | Dated: 26.12.2017

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1243/2016-Wel./CD/ 3512-13                         Dated: 26.12.2017

In the matter of:

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur Sur,

E2/32, Sector 15,

Rohini, New Delhi-110089.                            ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus      

                   

The Director,

Directorate of Education,

Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054                       ………...…Respondent

           

                              ORDER

          The above named complainant, vide her complaint dated 19.04.2016 submitted that her daughter Garima Singh Sur aged 25 years is a person with Autism with an IQ of 40%.  She was studying at Kulachi Hansraj Manovikas Kendra School, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.  She has been discontinued from the School as she had attained the age of 25 years. 

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent, Directorate of Education vide letter dated 06.05.2016.  Vide letter 28.05.2016, the respondent submitted that the school is not a recognised school/ public institution under Education Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  As such no action was possible at their end for redressal of the grievance of the complaint.  The complainant may therefore, be advised to approach the authority which had granted recognition to the said school (Kulachi Hansraj Manovikas Kendra).  The matter was then taken up with the Director, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 18.10.2016 and 28.11.2016 and meeting was held by Dy. Commissioner with the school authorities and complainant on 20.01.2017.  The representatives of the school added that there was no policy for continuing such children beyond 25 years.

3.      The Dy. Commissioner contacted the complainant on 06.12.2017 regarding admission of her daughter.  She informed that her daughter is studying in another school and also attending vocational training classes.  Kulachi Hansraj Manovikas Kendra, Ashok Vihar has refused to continue her daughter in their school as per the policy of the school.  She also requested to close the case.

4.      In view of the facts mentioned above, the case is closed and disposed off.  However there is need to study the entry and exit policy of such institutions and Department of Social Welfare needs to make appropriate arrangements for education and training of children with disabilities beyond the age of 18 years.

5.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th day of December, 2017.     

                                                                            

                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                 State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


View the digitally signed PDF Order here:

Nanak Chand Vs. DCP (West District), Delhi Police | Case No. 4/1439/2016-Wel./CD/3482-84 | Dated: 22.12.2017

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1439/2016-Wel./CD/3482-84                          Dated: 22.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Nanak Chand,

D-10, Raghubir Nagar,

New Delhi-110027.                                                 ................ Petitioner

                                      Versus               

The DCP (West District),

Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police,

Delhi Police, Police Station, Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi-110028.                                           ………...…Respondent

                         ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint received on 07.10.2016 submitted that his uncles Ved Prakash, Raj Kumar and Pawan Kumar have threatened him to assassinate him.  He is the only son of his parents and his father is not fully sound in mind.  The house D-10, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi in which he alongwith his parents is staying, was allotted to his father.  His father allowed his uncle Ved Prakash to live in one room on the 1^st floor.  But he is using D-10, 1^st Floor and D-11 for bathroom and kitchen.  His other uncles are residing in D-11 along with his grandmother.  D-11 is a parental property.  He further submitted that as he is a visually impaired person and socially weak, he fears that they will assassinate him.  His uncle Ved Prakash is not vacating the 1^st floor room.  They also often fight with him and his parents.  He filed a complaint with the Police Station, Khyala but no action was taken.  He requested to get the 1^st floor of his house vacated and to direct the Delhi Police to take legal action against his uncles.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 26.10.2016 followed by reminder dated 15.11.2016 and a hearing on 15.12.2016.  As the complainant did not appear on 15.12.2016, he was contacted on telephone and the report dated 30.11.2016 of the police was read over to him.  As he was not satisfied, another hearing was scheduled on 13.12.2017.

3.      During the hearing on 13.12.2017, the complainant accompanied by his mother reiterated his written submissions.   He added that his uncles, aunt and their children often harass and abuse them.  His father is suffering from neurological problems and often has seizures.  The neighbours are afraid of his uncles and therefore they also do not cooperate and come forward to help the complainant and his parents.

4.      He further submitted that he has filed a civil suit in Tis Hazari Court for vacating the house D-10, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi.  He has filed another complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the said relatives for harassment etc.  He also stated that by the time PCR van arrives, his uncles move away from the spot and escape action.

5.      The representative of the respondent submitted that the report in connection with this case has already been submitted vide communication dated 30.11.2016 after recording the statement of the complainant and approval of the competent authority as stated therein.Since the matter is related to the property dispute no further police action is required. However, the police will take appropriate action under the law if the complainant is harassed by the alleged person.  In any case, since a criminal case is also pending in the Tis Hazari Court on the similar allegations, the Police will file the status report and will act as may be directed by that Court.

6.      The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, has come into effect from 19.04.2017. Section 7 of the said Act mandates the appropriate Government to take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation.  Section 7(4) also provides that any Police Officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability, shall inform the aggrieved person of –

(a) his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the particularsof the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide assistance;

(b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for therehabilitation of persons with disabilities;

(c) the right to free legal aid; and

(d) the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other lawdealing with such offence:

7.      In this regard, Office of Commissioner of Police: Delhi has already issued an advisory circular No. 28/2017 dated 25.10.17 to all concerned in Delhi Police with the direction to all the DCsP to make the IOs aware of the provisions of the Act and to ensure its effective implementation.   A copy of the said circular was handed over to the representation of the respondent during the hearing.  The complainant was also informed about the legal aid that he can avail through Delhi Legal Services Authority.  He, in fact, is already aware about it and had availed the facility.

 

8.      In the light of the fact that the complainant has already moved the appropriate courts for legal remedies and the respondent assures to extend necessary assistance under the law as and when required by the complainant, the complaint is closed and disposed off accordingly.

9.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22nd day of December, 2017.     

                                                                            

                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal )

                     State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Ram Kishan Vs. Medical Superintendent VMCC, Safdarjung Hospital | Case No. 4/1346/2016-Wel./CD/3490-91 | Dated: 22.12.2017

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1346/2016-Wel./CD/3490-91      Dated: 22.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Ram Kishan,

H. No. 224, Sarai Peepal Thala,

Near Adarsh Nagar,

Delhi-110033                                             ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus                         

The Medical Superintendent,

VMMC, Safdarjung Hospital,

Govt.of NCT of Delhi,

Ansari Nagar West,

New. Delhi-110029

           ………...…Respondent

ORDER

          Sh. Ram Kishan, a person with locomotor disability filed a complaint that Dr. Anita Ghai does not have a valid disability certificate and its authenticity may be verified. 

2.      The matter was taken up with Medical Superintendent, BMC and Safdarjung Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Ansari Nagar West, the issuing authority for verification of certificate.   Vide letter dated 19.10.2016 the hospital informed that medical records related to disability for the year 1998 have been weeded out.  Another communication was received from Professor and Head (PMR) Dr. Nonical Laisram vide letter dated 03.11.2016 certifying that Dr. R.K. Wadhwa, SAG Officer, Department of PMR had verified the original Disability certificate held by Dr. Anita Ghai.

2.      Dr. Anita Ghai also visited this office and showed the original certificate to Dy. Commissioner, Disability and found the certificate in order.  In view of this, the complaint is closed.

3.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22nd day of December, 2017.

(T.D. Dhariyal)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Dinesh Singh Negi Vs. President, Raj Vihar CGHS & 3 Ors | Case No. 4/1185/2016-Wel/CD/3494-98 | Dated: 22.12.2017

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1185/2016-Wel/CD/3494-98                                     Dated: 22.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Dinesh Singh Negi

Flat No-24, Rah Vihar,CGHS,

Plot. No-13, Sector-18A,

Dwarka, New Delhi -110078.                                                 ..............Complainant

                                                      Versus

The President                                                         Registrar Co-operative Societies,         

Raj Vihar, CGHS                                                      GNCT of Delhi,        

Plot no.-13, Sector-18A                                           Paliament Street, New Delhi -110001

Dwarka, New Delhi -78 ......Respondent 1.                                  ..........Respondent 2. 

                                                                                   

The Vice Chairman                                                The Commissioner

DDA, B-Block, Ist Floor,                                          South Delhi Municipal Corpn.

Vikas Sadan, Near INA Market                              9^th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre

New Delhi – 110023.  ........Respondent 3.          JLN Marg, New Delhi -110002. 

........Respondent 4

Date of Hearing: 30.11.2017

Present:  Counsel for DDA, Adv. Renu Gautam Sharma

                 

                           

ORDER

            The above named complainant vide his complaint dated 09.02.2016 submitted that his elder daughter is suffering from mental retardation. He requested Raj Vihar CGHS, Sector -18 A, Dwarka, Delhi to ensure the free passage from lift to the open parking, if necessary, by vacating the parking area allotted by the society in the common passage area.  That was necessary for free access /movement of vehicles in case of emergency.  However, the President of the society did not care even to answer the communication.  The complainant therefore requested to direct the President of the Society/appropriate authority to ensure free passage from lift to open parking. 

2.         The complaint was taken up with the Registrar, Cooperative Society vide letter dated 25.02.2016 followed by reminder dated 07.04.2016, 08.11.2016 and 30.11.2016.

3.         The Registrar, Cooperative Society vide letter dated 29.11.2016 advised the Ex-President and Secretary of the Raj Vihar CGHS to take appropriate action and file Action Taken Report before this court since DDA was the authority for amendment of building bye- laws.  Despite repeated reminders the President and Secretary of the Society did not respond. 

4.         The complainant vide his letter dated 03.03.2017informed that the then President had expired and fresh managing committee had been elected.  Since he had been elected as Secretary of the Society, he would like to disassociate himself from the role of finding solution as Secretary of Managing Committee.  Vice Chairman, DDA was impleaded as respondent No. 3 and a hearing was scheduled on 05.06.2017.  While the complainant and the President of the Society appeared, Registrar, Cooperative Society and DDA were not represented. 

5.         The Complainant reiterated in his written submission and added that his 11 year old daughter is a person with mental retardation and has a history of epilepsy.  The car parking lots 5 and 10 in the stilt area in front of exit from the lifts have been shown as parking lots by DDA in its parking plan of the society dated 08.07.2010 apparently due to over sight or mistake as the circulation area plan of DDA of the same date shows the area as the circulation area.  The said lots can also not be earmarked as parking lots as those obstruct the movement to the arterial road in the society.  Due to the parked cars at those lots, it is not possible for the ambulance to go close to the lift to enable his daughter to board the ambulance.  Copies of the parking plan and the circulation plan for the said society submitted by the complainant were enclosed for DDA’s reference.  He further submitted that the society has allotted 18 covered parking lots instead of 16 and the former President had allotted one of the said parking spaces to Sh. Arvind S. Gulati on temporary basis which was not proper. 

6.         Sh. J.K. Batheja, the President of Raj Vihar Society submitted that car par kings have been allotted as per the sanctioned drawings by DDA.  If those parking lots are removed from the drawing or directions are received from the appropriate authority namely DDA, the Society can at present accommodate the allottees of car parking lots 5 and 10.

7.         It was observed from the submissions of parties that DDA needed to clarify whether the contention of the complainant with respect to car parking lot no. 05 and 10 was right and if so, then DDA should issue appropriate direction to the President of Raj Vihar CGHS Ltd. for clearing the circulation area within 30 days from the date of receipt of the proceedings.  The Managing Committee of the society was also advised to take appropriate action to resolve the matter within 30 days from the date of receipt of the clarification/directions from DDA and intimate the decision taken to the complainant and this court within a week thereafter.  In case of any dispute or difficulty in resolving the matter, the President of the Society was directed to approach Registrar Cooperative Societies, GNCTD, who was advised to make efforts to resolve the issue and intimate this court within 15 days from the date the President of the Society approached him/her.  DDA was further advised as to how barrier free movement and access from the lift could be ensured for the daughter of the complainant particularly in case of emergency, if parking lots No. 5 and 10 have indeed been indicated correctly in the parking plan. 

8.         On the next date of hearing on 01.09.2017, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 DDA submitted that the area in which the Raj Vihar, CGHS  is located, has been de-notified and the building activities have been handed over to South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC).  Therefore, any decision about the construction etc. can be done with the approval of SDMC.  However, as the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had approved the drawings and the case involved a person with disability, DDA examined the matter and was in the process of suggesting some feasible solution.  She sought two week’s time to submit the written submissions which would contain the proposed solution based on examination of the Building Department.  She also explained the possible ways to provide access for Ambulance and the cars to the lifts in case of emergency. However, as DDA was not the authority to approve any amendment / modification, that was only a suggestion to be implemented by the Management Committee of the society with the approval of the local authority i.e. the SDMC. 

9.         The representative of Registrar Co-operative Societies, the respondent No.2 stated that although they have no role with regard to the modifications / relocation of parking spaces, they would instruct the society to sort out the matter. 

10.       The Authorised Representative of respondent No. 1, the society stated that the suggestion of DDA appears to be feasible and workable as that would be closer to the lift.  If the Management Committee issues a circular for removal of one parking slot on each side of the lift core as no parking zone, the problem would get resolved.  Since that also happened to be an alternative solution by DDA, its implementation should not be a problem.

11.       The complainant submitted that if suggested solution is implemented, a provision of shed would need to be made to make it all weather friendly.  This should also not be in contravention of any bye-laws regulating the Fire Act, National Disaster Management Act, etc.

12.       In the light of the submissions of respondent no.3 that SDMC would be the authority to approve any modification / construction etc., Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation was impleaded as respondent no. 4 and was advised to submit his / her comments on the suggestions that the DDA may formally submit and the Corporation’s own suggestions on the next date of hearing so that the complaint could be disposed of.  Respondent No. 3 was advised to send a copy of the suggestions to the Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation by 11.09.2017.

13.       DDA vide their reply dated 15.09.2017 submitted as under: -

“1. That the contents of para 1 of the complaint is matter of record.  It is denied that the car parking lots 05 and 10 in the stilt area in front of exit from the lifts have been shown as parking lots by DDA in it parking, plan of the society dated 08.07.2010 apparently due to over sight or mistake as the circulation area.  The said lots can also not be same date shows the area as the circulation area.  The said lots can also not be earmarked as parking lots as those obstruct the movement to the arterial road in the society.  It is submitted that the matter is regarding the Car parking shown as 05 and 10 in the Stilt Area in front of exit from the lifts lobbies in r/o Raj Vihar CGHS Ltd. at plot no. 13, Sector 18 A, Dwarka, New Delhi -110078.  As per the approved Parking Plain of Completion Drawing dated 08.07.2010, the ECS required/provided as prescribed in MPD-2021 are as under: -

A.        Total ECS required                                      : 109.30 ECS

B.        Total ECS provided in Open and Stilt       : 128.08 ECS

            I) Actual car space provided in Open        = 68 Nos.

            II) Actual car space provided in Stilt          = 16 Nos.

            ___________________________________________

                Total                                                           = 84 Nos.

            ___________________________________________

            The current UBBL-2016 has a chapter 11 dedicated for Provisions for Universal Design for Differently Abled, Elderly and children.  Copy of the guidelines prescribed under law is annexed as Annexure –A.

2-3.     That the contents of para 2 and 3 of the complaint is matter of record.  It is submitted that the area of Raj Vihar CGHS Ltd. at Plot No. 13, Sector 18 A has already been denotified vide Notification No. F.12 (47)/09/L&B/Plg.6412 dated 16.07.2010 (refer Annexure B).  The said area is now pertains to the North MCD.  Therefore, concerned MCD will take action/direction in this case.  The concerned building file is still lying with DDA, Building section.  The DDA has proposed two options immediately as the matter is related to provide obstruction free movement from car parking to Lift Lobby for differently abled persons which are as under.  Copy of Notification is attached as Annexure –B.

4.         That the contents of para 4 of the complaint cum proceedings is matter of record.  It is submitted that the matter was fixed for 26.06.2017 for proceedings but unfortunately it was the holiday due to Eid.

5.         That the contents of para 5 of the complaint is matter of record hence need no reply.

6.         That the contents of para 6 of the complaint is matter of record.  It is submitted that the matter is regarding the Car parking shown as 05 and 10 in the Stilt Area in front of exit from the lifts lobbies in r/o Raj Vihar CGHS Ltd. at plot No.13, Sector-18 A, Dwarka, New Delhi -110078.  As per the approved Parking Plain of Completion Drawing dated 08.07.2010, the ECS required/provided as prescribed in MPD-2021 are as under:

A         Total ECS required                                      : 109.30 ECS

B.        Total ECS provided in Open and Stilt       : 128.08 ECS

            I) Actual car space provided in Open        = 68 Nos.

            II) Actual car space provided in Stilt          = 16 Nos.

            ___________________________________________

                Total                                                           = 84 Nos.

            ___________________________________________

            The current UBBL-2016 has a chapter 11 dedicated for Provisions for Universal Design for Differently Abled, Elderly and children.

7.         That the contents of para 7 of the complaint is matter of record.  It is submitted that the area of Raj Vihar CGHS Ltd. at Plot No. 13, Sector 18 A has already been denotified vide Notification No. F.12 (47)/09/L&B/Plg./6412 dated 16.07.2010 (refer Annexure B).  The said area is now pertains to the North MCD.  Therefore, concerned MCD will take action/direction in this case.  The concerned building file is still lying with DDA, Building Section.  The DDA has proposed two options immediately as the matter is related to provide obstruction free movement from car parking to Lift Lobby for differently abled persons which are as under:

8.         That it is submitted that DDA has proposed two suggestions only.  The actual dimensional barrier free facilities as per UBBL-2016/relevant acts shall have to be designed as per site conditions by the Architect appointed by the CGHS and revised drawings can be sanctioned by the concerned local authority i.e. SDMC, Letter send to the President Raj Vihar CGHS Ltd., Plot No. 13, Sector 18A, Dwarka, New Delhi -78 in which the suggestions were given to them vide letter No. F.23 (23)2001/Bldg/L&I/229 dt. 31.08.2017. Copy of letter is attached as Annexure –C.

            Suggestion can be implemented to sort the issue and the options are as under:

Option 1:       The MC of the Society can accommodate dedicated Car parking at 2 places i.e. behind lifts well structures on both the Housing Towers.  These two Car-parking Locations shall be negotiated through ramps from Car parking to Lift Lobby level through the ramp enabling the wheel chair to reach the lift lobby area.  Coy of plan is attached as Annexure-D.

Option 2:       The car parking location marked as 05 and 10 in both the blocks in stilt area may be abolished to create obstruction free wheel chair movement from Car parking area to lift lobby area as the society has 128.08 ECS against required 109 ECS.”

14. On the next date of hearing on 25.10.2017, the representative of SDMC submitted status report which is reproduced below;

                        “That the complainant Sh. Dinesh Singh Negi was contacted in order to have first-hand knowledge of the matter as well as the grievance to be redressed through the court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (NCT, Delhi).  Sh. Dinesh Singh Negi informed that his child is handicapped and is not keeping well and very frequently he has to call the Ambulance for taking her to the hospital for the ailment.  He further informed that the distance from the lift to the place where the Ambulance is parked in the society is bit far; as a result lot of inconvenience is faced by him to reach to the Ambulance for taking the child to the hospital. 

            On the last date of hearing, DDA brought forward some of the suggestions.  The complainant suggested that a provision of shed near to the lift would need to be made to make the passage weather friendly and this exercise shall also not be in contravention of any Bye-Laws regulating the Fire Act, NDMA etc.  Further, it was also opined that the parking lot near the lift may be vacated or re-arranged and also if deemed fit the fiber sheet/shed over the open space near the lift may be provided to provide relief to the complainant. 

                        However, SDMC has no objection if the Management Committee issues a circular for removal of one parking lot on each side of the lift core as no parking zone, the problem will get resolved.  Since, this also happens to be an alternative solution by DDA; implementation should not be a problem.

            Regarding erection of a shed near to the lift, SDMC has no objection if it is within the ambit of Master Plan -2021/Building-Bye-Laws.

               

Place: New Delhi

            Dated:  25.10.2017

ASSISTANT ENGINEER (BLDG.)-III

NAJAFGARH ZONE (SDMC)”

15.       During the hearing on 30.11.2017, Advocate Renu Gautam Sharma, Ld. Counsel for DDA submitted that DDA has no role to play as it has already suggested two options for implementation by MCD in the society.  She requested to discharge DDA from the array of the respondent. 

16.       The complainant and the representatives of Raj Vihar CGHS Ltd. did not appear, Sh. Jagdish Batheja, President, Raj Vihar CGHS Ltd. vide his e-Mail dated 30.04.2017 informed that he was not able to attend the hearing due to ill health and if postponement of the hearing is not possible, he would arrange to send his written submissions.  He was informed to submit the written submissions and accordingly, vide his submission dated 04.12.2017 he informed as under:

17.       “The Managing Committee of the Society can implement the first option given by the Engineers of the DDA –MCD in their Status Report.

Option 1:  he area behind the lift of both blocks is to be utilised for dedicated ambulance parking as it is closely located to vertical exits (stairs and lifts) from upper floors and also travelling distance is just 5 to 10 metres from lifts and also in this area as per building bye-laws both side of the lift have step less access for persons with disabilities, sick person –using wheelchairs, Crutches, stretchers etc.  This dedicated parking area for ambulance can be covered with fibre shed to make it all weather friendly.  It’s also not in contravention of any bye-laws of any authority.

Option 2: The other option suggested by DDA is to re-arrange covered parking lots which will not be viable option as access area towards lift area is unlabelled and as gutter and shafts of waste water.  Further the distance from the lifts is also almost 30-35 meters away. Henceforth, this particular exit may not be safe for persons with disabilities, sick person, old age or any patient.”

18.       He has requested to go through his observations and suggesting so that the Managing Committee can implement the orders at the earliest.”

19.       Sh. Batheja was requested to e-mail his submission dated 04.12.2017 to the complainant vide this court’s e-mail dated 6.12.2017 and the complainant was advised to submit his comments, if any, within 7 days of receipt of the submissions dated 04.12.2017 of Sh. Batheja.  Sh. Batheja sent the e-mail to the complainant on 11.12.2017. Till date no comments have been received from the complainant.

20.        In light of the above, the respondent No. 1 is advised to implement option-1 has suggested by the society.  All concerned civic and other authorities involved are also advised to facilitate and accord necessary approval on priority, so that the option is implemented within three months from the date of receipt of this order.  Respondent No. 1 shall submit an Action Taken Report regarding implementation of the said option within three months from the date of receipt of this order with a copy to the complainant and other respondents for their information.

21.       The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

22.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 22nd day of December, 2017.

                                                                                              

(T.D. DHARIYAL)

Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities