Saturday, December 23, 2017

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                              9th 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


No comments:

Post a Comment