Delhi

StateCommission

CC/09/333

LIKHMA RAM BUDANIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision :  27.01.2015

Complaint Case No.333/2009

     

 

Sh. Likhma Ram Bhudaniya

 

S/o Sh. Udai Ram

R/o Booth No. 187

Sector-36-D

Chandigarh UT 160036                    ....Complainant    

                                                      

VERSUS

Central Himalayan Land

Development Company Limited

 

Through its Managing Director

C-203, Defence Colony

New Delhi-11002                           …..Opposite Party

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.       Central Himalayan Land Development Company Limited (hereinafter called the OP) is a developer who floated a scheme for allotment of plots in Nainital (Uttarakhand). On 28.06.2005, admittedly a letter of allotment was issued in favour of the complainant by the OP. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the complainant made a payment of Rs. 15,75,050/- to the OP during the period between 28.06.2005 and 10.08.2007. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP did not develop the plot. Sale deed dt. 14.09.2007 was purportedly executed between the parties showing the sale price as Rs. 3,36,000/-. Contention of the complainant is that the plot in question has not even been demarcated. No development has taken place at the site. It is for these reasons that the complainant could not raise even a boundary wall on the said plot.
2.       The defence raised by the OP in its written version is that the complaint is barred by time. Contention of the OP is that the sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant on 14.09.2007 whereas the complaint has been filed on 16.12.2009. OP wants this court to dismiss the complaint on the basis of it being time barred. Next objection raised by the OP is that the complainant is not residing in the said township and for that reason not entitled to the amenities like water, electricity, street light, roads and highway.
3.       OP in its letter of allotment dt. 28.06.2005 stated that the possession of the site would be offered to the complainant on completion of the development work.  Admittedly no development has taken place at the site so far. It goes to show that the possession of the plot has not been handed over to the complainant so far. The plea that the complaint is barred by limitation is, therefore, of no help to the OP.
4.       A careful perusal of the alleged sale deed shows that it bears the signatures of the purchaser only i.e. the complainant. It does not bear the signatures of the seller i.e. the OP. The complainant has put the date as 14.09.2007 while signing the alleged sale deed on all its pages. On the reverse of the pages of the sale deed, it allegedly bears the stamp of the Sub-Registrar who purportedly registered the documents. The said stamp bears the date, ‘17.03.2007’. On a query by this court, Ld. Counsel for the OP Sh. Sarvesh Singh Advocate has failed to reconcile as to the Registration of the document on 17.03.2007 and its Execution much thereafter i.e. on 14.09.2007. It may be reiterated here that the document does not bear the signatures of the OP. We are left with no option but to hold that the document itself is a forged and fabricated one.
5.       The OP admittedly received an amount of Rs. 15,75,050/- from the complainant whereas the sale deed executed shows the price of the plot as Rs. 3,36,000/-.  In other words, the OP wanted to play fraud even with the revenue authorities by not paying the requisite stamp duty.
6.       Plea taken by the OP that the complainant is not entitled to any development (as discussed above) is ridiculous. This is a clear case of ‘unfair trade practice’. We, therefore, direct the OP to pay to the complainant as under:-

1. to refund the amount of Rs. 15,75,050/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation.
2. to pay compensation for harassment, pain and mental agony to the tune of Rs. 7 Lac (@ of Rs. 1 Lac per year) for delayed possession from the year 2007 till date).
3.  to pay to the complainant litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 55,000/-.

OP shall pay the abovesaid amounts to the complainant within a period of 60 days from today failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. thereon.

1.       Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of cost as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to records.