Order No. 9 dt. 27/01/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one residential flat situated on the 3rd floor of premises no.961, Laskarhat Road, Kolkat-39 and took loan from o.p. no.1. The deed of conveyance was executed by the vendor in favour of the complainant and registered in the office of District Sub-Registrar III, South 24 Pgns. Alipore. On the date of registration the value of the flat was paid by the representative of o.p. no.1 to the vendor and after completion of registration the IGR which was issued by registration office was taken by o.p. no.1 for collecting the deed of conveyance.
The complainant paid the EMI regularly while the complainant wanted to mutate his name and wanted to have the number of the deed registered in the registration office he came to learn that o.p. no.1 has not taken the original deed from the registration office. Subsequently the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice to o.p. no.1 and the complainant was informed that the deed is still lying in the office of District Sub-Registrar III, South 24 Pgns. Alipore. The complainant was never informed regarding collection of the said original deed from the registration office, as a result of which the complainant filed this case with the allegation that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1 and the complainant accordingly prayed for compensation of Rs.7 lakhs for mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- for litigation cost.
In spite of receipt of notices the o.ps. did not contest the case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.ps.
In order to prove the case the complainant filed the evidence wherefrom it is evident that the complainant obtained loan from o.p. no.1 and the original receipt was kept in the possession of o.p. no.1. The complainant in order to mutate his name in respect of the flat purchased by him wanted to have the original deed from the custody of o.p. no.1 but he was informed that the deed was not obtained from the registration office. After the lapse of 7 years the deed was not taken by o.p. no.1, subsequently the complainant obtained a certified copy from the registration office and took steps for mutating his name. it was stated by the complainant in the evidence that the complainant paid the EMI regularly and because of not obtaining the original deed from the registration office by o.p. no.1 for more than 7 years the complainant suffered mental agony and as such, the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.7 lakhs and litigation cost.
On perusal of the documents it appears that the complainant obtained loan from o.p. no.1, though the complainant claimed that he regularly paid the EMI to the bank but no document has been filed to that effect. Be that as it may, since the bank has not contested the case and it is also an admitted fact that the deed was not signed by the Registrar, therefore the deed could not be delivered to o.p. no.1. From the materials on record as well as the pleadings of the complainant it appears that the deed was signed by the Registrar after the lapse of 7 years and subsequently after completion of the registration and signature by the Registrar in respect of the said deed the certified copy of the deed was handed over to the complainant. The complainant after receiving the said certified copy of the deed made arrangement for mutating his name in the corporation record. It is true that o.p. no.1 ought to have obtained the deed of conveyance immediately after the registration of the deed but since the registration was not completed because of signature was not made by the Registrar therefore o.p. no.1 could not procure the said deed from the registration office. Because of such delay in collection of the deed in question o.p. no.1 ought to have taken initiative and the complainant could have been informed regarding non availability of the deed of conveyance from the registration office. Since no information was given to the complainant and as such the complainant had to face the mental agony and harassment, therefore we hold that the complainant is to be compensated for the mental agony and harassment faced by him for not getting the deed as well as for not getting any information from o.p. no.1 regarding the non availability of the deed because of not putting signature by the Registrar. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that t he complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.283/2015 is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte without cost against the proforma o.p. no.2. The o.p. no.1 is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
