DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.1042 of 2011
Sri Shyam Kumar Tripathi, aged about 41 yrs.,
S/o Late Sri Devi Prashad Tripathi,
H.No. E-4025, Rajajipuram,
Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
- Assistant Housing Commissioner,
Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parishad,
Vrindavan Yojna, Lucknow.
- Housing Commissioner,
Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parishad,
104, Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Hazratganj, Lucknow.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs for directing the OPs to execute the sale deed in the name of the Complainant on the stamp value of Rs.23,000.00.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he has tried to purchase a plot from the OPs in the scheme of Vrindavan Yojna. The Complainant deposited Rs.30,000.00 on 01.02.2002 in the account of OPs alongwith form No.111 as booking amount for the plot. The registration number 077/220/R1-B/200201/2630 was issued in the name of the Complainant by the OPs. The name of Complainant was submitted in the draw of lottery system for the sale of the plot, in which the plot No.7A/457 was allotted in the name of Complainant on 24.02.2003 for which information sent to the Complainant vide letter dated 31.03.2003 by the OPs. The OPs issued allotment letter about the above plot wherein the terms and conditions are
-2-
mentioned and required amount of Rs.3,27,062.00 in which deducting an advance of Rs.30,000.00 with interest Rs.1,200.00 totalling Rs.31,200.00 the amount of Rs.2,95,862.00 was deposited till 31.05.2003 against the above plot. The Complainant had deposited Rs.2,50,000.00 through DD dated 29.05.2003 and Rs.45,862.00 through DD dated 17.05.2003 against the plot No.7A/457, therefore the total amount of Rs.2,95,862.00 was deposited within time as per allotment letter. The Complainant arranged the above deposited amount of Rs.2,95,862.00 from M/s LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The Complainant had submitted all the documents and all the dues according to the requirement of the OPs received by the OPs’ staff on 31.05.2003. The above documents were misplaced which were again demanded by the OPs and second time the documents were received in the office of OPs on 03.06.2003. The stamp duty for the sale deed was already submitted in 2008 in the office of OP No.1. The OP sent a notice wherein they gave the date 30.06.2008 for execution of the sale deed. In the notice the balance amount was shown as Rs.7,150.00 and the site plan charge Rs.50.00 was also mentioned on which Rs.13,000.00 was deposited by the Complainant on 01.07.2008 and Rs.50.00 on 08.07.2008 in Punjab National Bank and receipt was also submitted in the office of OP No.1. The Complainant had submitted stamp paper in 2008, the value of the stamp paper of Rs.23,000.00 was calculated according to circle rate by the official of OPs but the sale deed has not been prepared till date. The OPs issued notice dated 29.09.2008 to the Complainant. The Complainant contacted personally as well as in writing to the office of OP No.1for completion of the registry of the allotted plot for the past 5 years which is received on 24.10.2008. After two months the Complainant had dispatched a reminder dated 22.12.2008 wherein it is mentioned that the sale deed has not been executed within time and in future if the circle rate is increased then the Complainant is not
-3-
responsible. The official of OP No.1 verbally demanded delay charges of Rs.65,050.00 for executing the sale deed. The OP No.1 dispatched a notice dated 29.08.2008 wherein it is mentioned that the formalities are incompleted. The above formalities were many times demanded and fulfilled by the Complainant but the sale deed is not executed, hence this complaint.
Notices were issued to the OPs but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte vide orders passed on 26.11.2012.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 16 annexures and 14 annexures with the complaint. The Complainant has also filed written arguments.
Heard Counsel for the Complainant and perused the entire record.
In this case, the Complainant had got himself registered for allotment of a plot with the OPs and through lottery he was allotted a plot No.7A/457 on 24.02.2003. The cost of the plot was Rs.3,27,062.00. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,95,862.00, arranging funds from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Even though the Complainant completed all the formalities still the OPs did not execute the sale deed and hence the Complainant filed this complaint but during the pendency of this case the OPs executed the sale deed of plot in question on 27.02.2012 but the possession of the plot has not yet been given. The very fact that the OPs after filing of this case have executed the sale deed in favour of the Complainant shows that the Complainant had done everything which was required of him for getting the sale deed executed but the OPs delayed the matter. The Complainant has filed documents to show that he was issued a letter for getting the sale deed executed and to take the possession of plot in question by 30.06.2008 by completing all the formalities. He has also filed many letters to show that he had deposited the entire amount but the sale deed of the plot in question was not done by the OPs and it is only after he filed
-4-
this case that the OPs have executed the sale deed but from the sale deed itself it is clear that the possession of the plot in question has not yet been given. Notices were issued to the OPs but none turned up nor filed any WS nor any counter affidavit to challenge the affidavit filed by the Complainant alongwith the documents. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelief the unchallenged testimony of the Complainant wherein he has supported the contents of the complaint in his affidavit alongwith the documents. Therefore, from the affidavit and documents filed by the Complainant, it is clear that the Complainant had completed all the formalities still the sale deed was not executed and it is only after filing this case that the sale deed was executed by the OPs but still they did not deliver the possession as is evident from the contents of the sale deed, therefore the OPs have committed serious deficiency in service. The Complainant therefore is entitled to get the possession of the plot in question. He is also entitled to get compensation for the delay in executing the sale deed by the OPs.
Considering the circumstances of the case and fact that the nearly entire amount was deposited in 2003 by the Complainant and the fact that the sale deed was executed in the year 2012 and the fact that the possession has not yet been given, we consider it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.50,000.00 to the Complainant. The Complainant is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to deliver the possession of plot in question to the Complainant.
The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation.
-5-
The compliance of the order is to be made within a month. If the compliance is not made within a month then the OPs shall pay 7% interest on the entire amount due.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President
Dated: 18 November, 2015
