Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/48/2019

Ramakant Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Housing Board - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/48/2019
Date of Institution	:	30/01/2019
Date of Decision	:	01/02/2023

 

Ramakant Sharma son of late Shri Chet Ram r/o House No.62, Sector 51, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Secretary/Chairman.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vivek Mohan Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ashish Rawal, Counsel for OP

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Ramakant Sharma, complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is allottee of House No.62, Sector 51, Chandigarh which was allotted to him by the OP.  After allotment of the same, complainant had applied for execution of the conveyance deed in the office of the OP in September-October 2015 and the complainant was informed by the OP vide letter dated 15.10.2015 (Ex.C-1) to deposit an amount of ₹25,950/- on account of stamp duty through treasury challan which was deposited by him on 2.12.2015 vide copy of challan (Ex.C-2).  Thereafter the OP had issued the conveyance deed to the complainant for its registration before the Sub Registrar, UT, Chandigarh and when the complainant presented the conveyance deed before the Sub Registrar, Chandigarh for its registration on 12.7.2016, he was shocked to hear that the Sub Registrar, Chandigarh has impounded the conveyance deed on the ground that the stamp duty on the conveyance deed was under value. The complainant had informed the said authority that he had already deposited an amount of ₹25,950/- as per the instructions issued by the OP, but, he was informed that the stamp duty rates have already been revised by the Chandigarh Administration on 12.1.2016. The collector vide its order dated 1.2.2017 (Ex.C-3) directed the Sub Registrar to release the conveyance deed after charging deficient stamp duty as per the collector rate applicable on the date of registration by also ordering that the complainant is free to pursue his claim qua the OP for recovery of additional charges on account of stamp duty levied upon him. Thereafter the complainant had deposited an amount of ₹1,34,301/- in the treasury on 27.4.2018 vide receipt (Ex.C-4) to get his conveyance deed released. As the complainant has suffered loss of ₹1,34,301/- on account of delay on the part of OP, the said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and also that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that in fact the said sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar, UT, Chandigarh by the complainant when the stamp duty rates of registration of various instruments/documents had already been enhanced.  On merits, OP reiterated the facts as alleged in the preliminary objections. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. The complainant chose not to file rejoinder to the written reply of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant vide letter dated 15.10.2015 (Ex.C-1) was asked by the OP to deposit an amount of ₹25,950/- on account of stamp duty, required for execution/registration of the conveyance deed in his favour, and thereafter the complainant had deposited the said amount on 2.12.2015 vide copy of challan (Ex.C-2) and subsequently the conveyance deed was handed over to the complainant by the OP for its registration and the same was presented by him for its registration on 12.7.2016 and the said conveyance deed was impounded by the Sub Registrar on account of deficient stamp duty paid by the complainant and the same was ordered to be released by the Collector, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 1.2.20217 (Ex.C-3), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed  in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant had deposited the requisite amount, as asked by the OP, for registration of the sale deed with the OP vide copy of challan (Ex.C-2) on 2.12.2015 and thereafter the conveyance deed was presented by him before the Sub Registrar on 12.7.2016, the sale deed could not have been impounded by the Sub Registrar on the ground that there was deficient stamp duty for the registration of the conveyance deed and as he was compelled to deposit further an amount of ₹1,34,301/- which was deposited by him vide receipt challan on 27.4.2018 (Ex.C-4), the complainant has successfully proved on record that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the consumer complaint.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the Chandigarh Administration had already revised the rates of stamp duty required for registration of the conveyance deed w.e.f. 2.1.2016 and the conveyance deed was presented by the complainant on 12.7.2016 i.e. when the rates had already been enhanced, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, be dismissed.
   4. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the OP as perusal of the copy of the challan receipt (Ex.C-2) clearly indicates that the complainant had deposited an amount of ₹25,950/- which was asked by the OP vide letter (Ex.C-1) and as the conveyance deed (Ex.C-7) was presented before the Sub Registrar by the complainant himself on 12.7.2016 for its registration and further when it is clear from the documentary evidence i.e. order (Annexure OP-1) of the Chandigarh Administration that the stamp duty rates for registration of instruments/documents had already been enhanced w.e.f. 2.1.2016, it is further clear on record that the purchaser of the property was required to pay the stamp duty for the registration of conveyance deed which was applicable on the day of registration of the documents.  As in the present case it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had presented the conveyance deed on 12.7.2016 and further it has come on record that the rates of stamp duty required for registration of the instruments had already been enhanced w.e.f. 2.1.2016, complainant was required to pay the stamp duty charges which were applicable on the day of presentation and registration of the conveyance deed. 
   5. Further when it has also come on record that the District Collector vide order dated 1.2.2017 (Ex.C-3) had ordered the release of the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant by directing the Sub Registrar to release the same after charging stamp duty as per the collector rate applicable on the date of registration i.e. 12.7.2016 and the same was paid by the complainant vide copy of challan (Ex.C-4) and accordingly the conveyance deed was released in his favour, complainant has failed to prove on record that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the present consumer complaint deserves to fail.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/02/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member