Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.09.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay actual loss of stamp to the tune of Rs. 36,800/- ( Rs. Thirty Six Thousand Eight Hundred only ) along with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 35,000/- ( Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only ) as loss on account of inordinate delay.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he had purchased one flat bearing no. B – 101 in Two Minar Apartment, situated in Road no. 10 B, Rajendra Nagar, Patna from Patna Regional Development Authority ( at present known as Patna Municipal Corporation ). The said flat was allotted to the complainant on 24.12.1992 and physical possession of the same was handed over on 18.12.1995. Thereafter, for the reason best known to the opposite parties, the registration was delayed without any explanation. After long delay, complainant was directed to bring non judicial stamp of Rs. 36,800/-The same was handed over to opposite parties in the year 2005 itself after getting the lease drafted on the above mentioned non judicial stamp paper for obtaining the signature of concerned V.C. of the opposite parties. No receipt of such deposit was provided to the complainant by opposite parties. The aforesaid steps were taken by husband of the complainant who was pursuing the matter on behalf of complainant who is his wife. When no steps were taken by opposite parties despite best effort of the complainant and her husband then vide letter dated 22.07.2009, the complainant sought information under R.T.I. Act to which the opposite parties provided the relevant information for the first time vide letter dated 19.08.2009 stating therein that complainant provided requisite stamp paper dated 14.10.2005 for getting the lease deed to be signed by concerned authority of the opposite parties. It was also informed that despite letter dated 21.08.2008 for depositing outstanding dues amount ( vide annexure – 1 and 2) the complainant has not taken any steps in this regard.
It is further case of the complainant that the two letters mentioned in annexure – 2 ( page 8 of the complaint petition ) were never received by her and the validity of entire non judicial stamp paper furnished by the complainant has expired due to callous attitude of the opposite parties putting the complainant to irreparable loss.
It is surprising that after issuing first reply vide annexure – 2, the opposite parties again issued letter ( reply) dated 29.08.2009 ( vide annexure – 3) on the pretext that there was some typing mistake in annexure – 2 dated 19.08.2009. In this reply it has been stated that for depositing the amount of Rs. 32,246/- as well as for making partial correction in typing lease deed the complainant was informed and the aforesaid deed after partial correction has been made available in the office but no date of submitting the deed is mentioned in the file ( vide annexure – 3).
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed. In Para – 4 of the written statement it has been stated that after depositing the provisional amount of Rs. 4,33,000/- the said flat was allotted to the complainant vide letter no. 6621 dated 24.12.1992 and after allotment of the flat the complainant was asked to take necessary steps for execution / registration of the flat vide annexure – A. In Para – 5 of written statement of opposite parties it is further stated that complainant had given undertaking by way of affidavit that she would execute/ register the sale deed of the said flat within a period of six months and in anticipation of the same it was ordered to hand over the possession of the flat vide annexure – B subject to payment of remaining due amount as well as execution of lease deed at the earliest. Thereafter vide annexure - C information was given to the complainant about handing over possession to the complainant.
It has been further stated in Para – 7 of written statement of opposite parties that vide letter no. 3757 dated 03.09.1996 necessary communication had been made by authority to the complainant with a request to execute/ register the lease deed with required court fees. Reminder was also given to him.
In Para – 8 of written statement of opposite parties it has been stated that complainant neither registered/ executed the lease deed nor deposited the remaining amount of the interest for delayed payment and after repeated request by the authority and only on 24.12.2005 after delay of nine years she has furnished the lease deed with required court fee.
In Para – 9 it has been stated that complainant has not deposited the interest amount of Rs. 32,246/- and some rectification which was raised by the authority had not been made by complainant on basis of same has taken place.
It has been also stated that vide annexure – D the complainant was informed about the contents of lease deed prepared by the counsel and approval by the Board of corporation and vide annexure – E a reminder was given to the complainant for submitting the revised lease deed and for payment of due interest of Rs. 32,246/-.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder (Reply ) has been filed in which it is stated that letter dated 04.12.1995 ( vide annexure – A ) was neither sent to the complainant nor it was received by the complainant and the same has to be proved by the opposite parties in the interest of substantial justice. Moreover, the fact is that the furnishing of stamp paper with duly typed matter of lease deed was provided by the complainant in year 2005 and thereafter no step was taken by opposite parties for the reason best known to them.
The fact stated in Para – 5 of written statement of opposite parties has also been denied by the complainant stating therein that no objection was raised by the opposite parties when the duly typed stamp paper for registration of flat in question was furnished in 2005.
It has been also stated that as opposite parties did not disclose the value of stamp paper required for registration prior to 2005 hence it could not be filed.
From bare perusal of Para – 10 of rejoinder it appears that no letter was received by the complainant and hence there was no question of making payment of Rs. 32,246/- arises in the fact and circumstances of the case.
The complainant has denied that the sale deed was returned to complainant for revising the lease deed rather the same is lying in the office of opposite parties since the deposit.
Thus the complainant has denied all the allegation of opposite parties.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record in the light of submission.
From perusal of information provided under R.T.I. Act to the complainant and communication to the complainant vide letter no. 748 dated 29.08.2009 ( vide annexure – 3), it is crystal clear that the complainant has deposited the typed and signed lease deed in 2005 which was processed on 24.12.2009.
It further transpires that there is no date on the file regarding submission of the corrected leased deed. Thus it is clear that the opposite parties were sitting tight over the matter for years which reflects there work of culture. The complainant has also denied the receiving of any letter for depositing Rs. 32,246/- which has been counted by way of interest.
No any evidence has been brought on the record to show the service of the copy of letter no. 718 dated 21.08.2005 and letter no. 35 dated 09.01.2009 which the opposite parties said to have issued to the complainant for depositing Rs. 32,246/- ( vide annexure – E).
The possession of the complainant of the aforesaid flat is admitted. The fact stated in counter affidavit has already been denied by the complainant by filing rejoinder and besides some letters the opposite parties have not brought on the record to show that the complainant had received any communication which they had sent in this regard.
From perusal of counter affidavit as well as annexure – 2 and 3 of the complaint petition it is crystal clear that by not processing the lease deed in time received by the opposite parties in 2005 the opposite parties has committed gross deficiency putting the complainant to loss and harassment who is a lady. Had the complainant would have processed the lease deed immediately the flat would have registered in 2006 itself during the existence of Regional development Authority. It is most unfortunate that uptill now the opposite parties no. 2 has not take care of the aforesaid lease deed after stepping in the shoes of Patna regional development Authority.
No purpose will be served in repeating the same fatc again and again.
For the discussion made above we direct the complainant to deposit the Rs. 32,246/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Thousand two Hundred Forty Six only ) within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.
We also direct the opposite parties that if the complainant deposit Rs. 32,246/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Thousand two Hundred Forty Six only ) within the aforesaid period then they will complete all the process for registration of the aforesaid flat in the name of the complainant within the period of two months from the date of depositing the amount of Rs. 32,246/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Thousand two Hundred Forty Six only ) by the complainant failing which the opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the said amount i.e. Rs. 32,246/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Thousand two Hundred Forty Six only ) till the registration is done in the name of complainant.
We further direct the opposite parties to bear the cost of the entire court stamp duty at the time of registration of the flat in question in the name of the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
