Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                             Complaint No. : 366.

                                                                             Instituted on     : 14.07.2023

                                                                             Decided on       : 30.11.2023

Jaipal Singh age 63 years son of Zile Singh, resident of Sector-3, Rohtak.

                                                                             .......................Complainant.                                                           Vs.

Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, Office at Kothi no.103, Vikas Nagar, Rohtak. 

……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Jaipal Singh, Advocate/complainant in person.

                   Opposite party exparte.

                                                ORDER

VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are thatcomplainant is owner of a house measuring 50Sq. yardssituated at Housing Board Colony, Rohtak  which was purchased by complainant from InderSingh son of Preet Singh vide registered sale deed bearing no.3956 dated 19.07.2004. When the complainant intend to sell out his aforesaid house, then it came to know that aforesaid house is to transfer first in the record of Housing Board, Rohtak, after that complainant can sell out this house. On 07.06.2023, complainant applied for transfer the said house in the record of Housing Board  and submitted all required documents as required by Housing Board Haryana alongwith affidavit and paid the required fee for this purpose Rs.500/- and also paid  Rs.5900/- on 17.06.2023 and Rs.240/- online in the account of Housing Board, Haryana, Rohtak and received a receipt online on 07.07.2023. Complainant had entered into an agreement to sell of said house and received earnest money of Rs.500000/- and sale deed was to execute and registered upto 10.07.2023. But due to non transfer of said house by the opposite party till 07.07.2023, complainant could not execute and register the sale deed and has to pay double of the earnest money Rs.10000/- Complainant requested the officials of opposite parties many a times to transfer the said house but to no effect.  The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to transfer the aforesaid house in favour of complainant and to issue transfer certificate to the complainant. It is further prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.1000000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant, which was paid by the complainant to purchaser of house on account of failure of execution of sale deed, to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Notice sent to opposite party received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party and as such opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.08.2023 of this Commission. 

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW7 and closed his evidence on 04.10.2023.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                Through this complaint the complainant has requested for transfer of house in his name and also requested to direct the respondent to issue transfer certificate in the name of complainant. He further demanded a sum of Rs.10 lac on account of loss suffered by him which was paid by the complainant to the purchaser of the house  on account of failure of execution of sale deed and also demanded an amount of Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

6.                We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. An agreement has been placed on record as Ex.CW1.  A sale deed (in favour of complainant) bearing no.3956 dated 19.07.2004 is placed on record as Ex.C2. Deposit slip amounting to Rs.240/- as Ex.CW3, deposit slip of Rs.5900/- as Ex.CW4, Receipt of Rs.5900/- as Ex.CW5, Ex.CW6 is the acknowledgement dated 07.06.2023  and another acknowledgement dated 19.06.2023 as Ex.CW7.  Perusal of document Ex.CW6 shows that the respondent officials issued “HBH- NOC Certificate/ duplicate allotment letter”. Thereafter the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5900/- with the respondent officials on 17.06.2023 and against this amount a receipt has been issued on dated 19.06.2023 for issuance of “HBH transfer of property in case of sale deed”. Against these receipts, the housing board department/respondent officials issued transfer of allotment of house no.44 Housing board old HBC-PH-1, Kanheli Road, Rohtak on dated 07.08.2023. Here the complainant states that as per Ex.CW7 he deposited the amount for transfer of property in his name on dated 19.06.2023 and service due date in this document is mentioned as 07.07.2023. Meaning thereby the respondent officials issued the transfer of allotment in the name of complainant upto 07.07.2023, whereas it has been issued by the department belatedly on 07.08.2023. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent officials as they have issued the transfer of allotment letter regarding the house no.44 Kanheli Road, Rohtakbelatedly. As such opposite party is liable to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service. Through this complaint complainant has also sought compensation for the loss suffered by him due to failure of execution of sale deed by the purchaser. In this regard it is observed that  this Commission deals with the cases of deficiency in service and this type of matter needs lengthy and detailed evidence, which cannot be decided in summary trial in Consumer Commission. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved. Hence this Commission has only jurisdiction to decide the deficiency in service, for which we have awarded Rs.5000/- as compensation. We have also perused the authorities cited by ld. counsel for the complainant in 2022(2)Law Herald(SC) 1427 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in BharatiBhattacharjee Vs. QuaziMaksuduzzaman&Ors., Civil Appeal no.2514-2516 decided on 28.04.2023 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in T.D.Vivek Kumar &Anr. Vs. Ranbir Chaudhary and 1(2022)CPJ76(Maha.) of Hon’ble Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai in case titled as MayurRajanShirke Vs. DilipG.Thanekar&Ors. But the authorities cited above are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby partly allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

30.11.2023.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member