DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 319 of 2013

R.P. Gupta

S/o Late Sh. P.R. Gupta,

780/6, Mehrauli,

New Delhi - 110030                                              ….Complainant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority,

Vikas Sadan, INA,

New Delhi – 110023                                              .…Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          :  27.05.13                                                          Date of Order        :  10.06.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member

O R D E R

          The complaint pertains to the non-registration of conveyance deed in respect of flat No. 136, Sector 19, Pkt I (Category II at TF), Dwarka, New Delhi which was allotted  to the complainant by the OP and given physical possession thereof on 13.5.2008.

          It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had earlier filed complaint case No. 133/2003 titled as R.P. Gupta Vs DDA before this forum and vide order dated 3.8.05 passed by our predecessors, the complaint was allowed.  OP was held guilty of deficiency in service and was directed to pay different amounts of money towards interest, other heads as detailed in the said order.  The said order was challenged by the OP before the State Commission by filing appeal No. FA 1011/2006 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2006.  It is also an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had deposited 3  copies of the unsigned conveyance deed duly stamped with stamp of Rs. 48400/- from the Collector of Stamps in terms of letter No. 177(577)95/5-8/DWII/139 dated 6.12.1999  with the OP duly acknowledged by the OP on 12.5.2000 but, however, the OP has not executed the conveyance deed so far despite the matter pursued by the complainant vide several letters and final notice dated 29.4.2013.  Pleading deficiency in service the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing following  directions to the OP:-

• “To Register the Conveyance Deed in respect of the Flat No. 136, sector 19, Pocket I, Dwarka, New Delhi in favour of the Complainant,
• To pay to the Complainant difference between Stamp Duty paid by the Complainant and the one existing on the date of Registration of the Conveyance Deed,
• To pay to the Complainant interest on Rs. 48400/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of submission of the stamped Conveyance Deed to the Opposite Party on 26.04.2000 after a reasonable period of say 3 months till the date of Registration of the Conveyance Deed,
• To award cost of the Complaint Application in favour of the Complainant,
• To award suitable compensation in favour of the complainant for harassment and Mental Agony caused by the Opposite Party.”

          In the written statement, OP has inter-alia stated that after the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the State Commission in the earlier complaint, the complainant thereafter filed an execution before this forum and the OP complied with the said order and the execution petition was disposed of as satisfied.  It is, however, further  stated as under:

“1. That the allotment file pertaining to the case could not be traced out despite best efforts made by the opposite party, therefore, all the allegations made in the complaint except specifically admitted hereinabove are denied for want of knowledge.  The opposite party is making sincere efforts in tracing the allotment file.  Memos has already been issued to various officials.  Copies of the some of the memos are attached.  Since the file main allotment file is not traceable, therefore, the complainant be directed to put on the strict proof of the allegations made in the complaint. The opposite party craves the leave of this Hon’ble Forum to file the detailed reply on merits on tracing the allotment file.”

It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Ms. Poonam Mathur, Director (H) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. 

We have heard the Complainant and also counsel for OP and have also perused the file very carefully.

We do not want to burden the order with a lengthy discussion.  We straightway come to the affidavit of the OP’s witness.  Para 10 of her affidavit reads as under:

“10. That since the allotment file has been traced and on completion of codal formalities the conveyance deed shall be executed in favour of the complainant.”

The said affidavit has been signed  and verified by the OP’s witness on 12.5.2014.  This fact clearly proves that the OP has in fact not executed the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainant so far.  However, at the same time in Para 9  OP’s witness has stated that a sum of Rs. 5,246.00 is recoverable from the complainant on account of maintenance charges and service charges.  The complainant has already deposited 3 unsigned copies of the conveyance deed with paid stamp duty of Rs. 48400/- with the OP on 12.5.2000.  Despite that the officers/officials of the OP have been sleeping over the matter for the last 16 years.  They have still not come out of their slumber and took stand in the written statement that the file in question is not traceable.  Now, in her affidavit  OP’s witness has stated that the file is made traceable and the conveyance deed shall be executed in favour of the complainant on completion of codal formalities.  What are those codal formalities is not disclosed.  It evident that the officials of the OP are not taking any interest towards execution of the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainant for some ulterior motives or some malafide intention and now after a lapse of 16 years they have come with a plea that a sum of Rs. 5,246/- is recoverable from the complainant on account of maintenance charges and service charges.  However, we are sorry to note that the details of the said amount have not been bifurcated, that is to say, how much  payment towards maintenance charges and how much payment towards service charges has to be made by the complainant.  Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the OP has taken this plea which has no basis and is, therefore, rejected in toto.

          We refrain ourselves from making further comments on the condemnable and unprofessional behaviour and attitude of the officers/officials of the OP.

 In view of the above discussion, we hold the OP guilty of grave deficiency in service, allow the  complaint and direct the OP to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  We hold that it shall be the OP who shall pay the remainder of stamp duty, if any, which may have been increased from 12.5.2000 till date of execution of the conveyance deed and the complainant shall not be asked to pay the said difference, if any.  We also direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant towards mental harassment and agony including cost of litigation.    In case the OP fails to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainant within the stipulated period, the complainant shall be at liberty to move to this forum to get the conveyance deed executed through the process of this forum and in that eventuality the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded as compensation towards mental agony and cost of litigation shall automatically stand increased to Rs. 1,25,000/-.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on   10.06.16.

(S.S. FONIA)                                                                        (NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                       (N.K. GOEL)   MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER                                                                                    PRESIDENT 

Case No. 319/13

10.06.2016

Present –   None.

Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed.  OP is directed to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  We hold that it shall be the OP who shall pay the remainder of stamp duty, if any, which may have been increased from 12.5.2000 till date of execution of the conveyance deed and the complainant shall not be asked to pay the said difference, if any.  We also direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant towards mental harassment and agony including cost of litigation.    In case the OP fails to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainant within the stipulated period, the complainant shall be at liberty to move to this forum to get the conveyance deed executed through the process of this forum and in that eventuality the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded as compensation towards mental agony and cost of litigation shall automatically stand increased to Rs. 1,25,000/-.    Let the file be consigned to record room.

(S.S. FONIA)                                                                        (NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                       (N.K. GOEL)   MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER                                                                                    PRESIDENT