Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/164/2022

SUBEDAR MAJOR JASWANT SNGH VETERAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH VICE CHAIRMAN - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

03 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/164/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	08/12/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	03/02/2023

 

 

 

 

 

Subedar Major Jaswant Singh, Veteran, Resident of H.No. 2525/B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh (U.T) – 160047.

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

1]    Ghaziabad Development Authority, through Vice Chairman, Vikas Path, Ghaziabad (U.P).

 

2]    Sub Registrar, IV, Tehsil Ghaziabad, Tehsil Compound Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P).

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Subedar Major Jaswant Singh, Appellant in person.
		Sh. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
		None for Respondent No.2.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.11.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/1130/2019, in the following terms:-

“8.  In view of the foregoing discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and he is not entitled for the claim as set up on in the consumer complaint. Accordingly, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

 

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Appellant/ Complainant that he was allotted a Plot No.NK 1/356 measuring 250 sq. meters by Respondent No.1/OP-1 for sale consideration of ₹2,87,500/- in Indirapuram Nitikhand Ghaziabad Scheme allotted by OP-1/ Authority. The complainant had paid an amount of ₹2,20,139/- as per scheme, being earnest money but as there was deficiency on the part of OP-1, complainant had promised to pay the balance amount at the time of offering possession of the plot. Instead of offering possession of the aforesaid plot, OP-1 had illegally cancelled the allotment as a result of which the complainant was compelled to file a complaint with the Hon’ble UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Hon’ble State Commission”).  Vide order dated 23.1.2012, the Hon’ble State Commission had directed OP-1 to give possession of 250 sq. meters plot in the same area with the assent of the complainant for above said consideration of ₹2,87,500/- on payment of balance amount of ₹67,361/- by the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum.  However, the GDA/OP-1 without the assent of the complainant vide letter dated 19.3.2013 (Annexure C-3) offered three plots i.e. plot No.1003, 1010 and 1011 (measuring 251.10 sq. meters) in Indraprashtha Yojna “D” Sector at Loni in place of the original allotment of plot No.NK 1/356. The complainant objected this allotment vide letter dated 29.4.2013, but, OP-1 had not considered the request of the complainant.  Later on, complainant approached the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi by way of appeal against the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 9.2.2015 (Annexure C-5) directed OP-1 to deliver the possession of above said three plots i.e. 1003, 1010 and 1011 (251.10 sq. meters) to the complainant instead of the earlier allotted plot No.NK 1/356 at the original cost within two months subject to deposit of balance amount of ₹67,361/- by the complainant and thereafter OP-1 shall execute the conveyance deed within one month from the date of furnishing the stamp duty by the complainant. However, despite of the clear direction by the Hon’ble National Commission in its order dated 9.2.2015, OP-1 had demanded an illegal and arbitrary amount of ₹1,08,078/- on account of balance payment and ₹3,69,500/- on account of stamp duty.  Not only this, even the actual possession of the plot was given after the execution of the sale deed dated 6.3.2018.  Besides that, OP-1 has also asked the complainant to pay the lease rent @ 10% at the cost of allotted plot No.1003 i.e. to the tune of ₹28,877/-.  The complainant sent draft for an amount of ₹1,08,078/- as balance amount of the above said three plots and had also requested OP-1 to correct the amount payable on account of stamp duty for making the conveyance deed.  In fact, OP-1 had not enquired/communicated with the revenue authority (OP-2) by sending the requisite documents which were required for execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the office of OP-1 several times and requested to clear the matter of payment of stamp duty and it was only in the month of March 2018 when the dealing clerk of OP-1 told that the total stamp duty payable is ₹79,100/- which was earlier asked to be payable as ₹3,97,500/-. This act of OP-1 has caused undue hardship and put pressure upon the complainant who was compelled to buy stamp paper for ₹58,600/- and had handed over the same to the said dealing clerk.  Thus, the total stamp paper for an amount of ₹79,100/- was handed over to the officials of OP-1 for the conveyance of the sale deed.  As earlier OP-1 had demanded ₹3,97,500/- in addition to ₹20,500/- which had already been paid by the complainant and the possession of the aforesaid plot was not handed over to the complainant before the execution of the sale deed, the complainant has suffered a lot due to the aforesaid act of the OPs which amounts to deficiency in service especially when there is inordinate delay of about three years for the execution of the sale deed and also that earlier OP-1 had demanded stamp duty of ₹3,97,500/- and further that OP-1 has charged lease rent of ₹28,877/- @ 10% of the consideration amount of plot No.1003. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

3.      Despite due service, Respondent No.2/OP-2 failed to put in appearance before the Ld. Lower Commission and as a result thereof, it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.10.2021.

 

4.      Respondent No.1/OP-1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its reply, admitting that originally plot No.NK 1/356 was allotted to the complainant in Indirapuram plot scheme with approximate cost of ₹2,87,500/- out of which the complainant had deposited an amount of ₹2,20,139/-. As the complainant had not deposited the amount as per the payment schedule, allotment of the plot was cancelled vide order dated 22.3.1997. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission and vide order dated 20.8.2004 it had directed for payment of the deposited amount with interest @ 9% from 9.12.1991 till the date of payment and accordingly the said amount was sent to the complainant through cheque dated 23.7.2005 by the Respondent No.1/OP-1. However, aggrieved by the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission, complainant filed first appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission by setting aside the earlier order of the Hon’ble State Commission had remanded back the matter to the Hon’ble State Commission for disposal of the same. Again the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 23.01.2012 directed that since the plot in Indirapuram scheme has been saturated, let plot of 250 sq. meters be given to the complainant with his consent in any other scheme after receiving balance amount and lease rent and after getting the sale deed executed, possession be handed to the complainant.  Against the said order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, both the parties had filed appeals before the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission directed the Respondent No.1/OP-1 to give plot No.D-1003, 1010 and 1011 (251.10 sq. meter) in Indiraprastha Scheme equal in area to that of cancelled plot measuring 250 sq. meter in Indirapuram Scheme and accordingly, the complainant had accepted the alternative plot given by the authority and as OP-1 was directed by the Hon’ble National Commission that on giving consent by the complainant, authority shall deliver possession of the plot in question within two months subject to condition that the complainant shall deposit balance amount of ₹67,361/- and only then the complainant after getting deposited the prescribed duty, shall get the sale deed executed in his favour. It was pleaded that since after giving his consent, complainant has received possession of the plot with full satisfaction on 21.03.2018, the consumer complaint of the complainant was not maintainable. So far as the stamp duty paid by the complainant is concerned, as OP-1 has no concern with the same, complainant is not entitled for any relief to that extent. Not only this, the lease rent has been received from the complainant as per rules only after his consent and also as the complainant had deposited the same voluntarily, he is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. On these ground, the consumer complaint was sought to be contested.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the Complaint of the Appellant/ Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

 

7.      We have heard the Appellant in person and Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection, along with the written arguments advanced by the Appellant as well as Respondent No.1.

 

8.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      The whole gamut of the lis circumambulates around the order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission since it was the case of the Appellant/complainant that Respondent/OP-1 had compelled him to pay excessive stamp duty for the execution of the sale deed in his favour and has also charged lease rent illegally from him, whereas OP-1 took a stand that whatever amount was payable for the execution of the sale deed, same was paid by the complainant as per law and the lease rent was also paid by the complainant also as per law. 

 

11.      A bare perusal of the order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission makes it emphatically clear that the earlier litigation between both the parties, which had arisen by way of two appeals before the Hon’ble National Commission, was set at rest through amicable settlement as Plot Nos.1003, 1010 and 1011, having total area of 251.10 sq. meter in lieu of plot No.NK 1/356 were allotted to the Appellant/Complainant and Respondent/ OP-1 had agreed that aforesaid allotment shall be made on payment of the consideration amount which was to be charged from the complainant in respect of plot No.NK 1/356 and the said offer given by OP-1 was accepted by the complainant voluntarily without any coercion or pressure from any corner. It was also settled between the parties at that time that OP-1/ authority shall hand over possession of the said plot to the complainant within two months subject to the complainant depositing the balance consideration amount of ₹67,361/- within two months and thereafter on the complainant furnishing the requisite stamp duty, the conveyance deed shall be executed in favour of the complainant within one month thereafter. It was also ordered by the Hon’ble National Commission that Respondent/OP-1 shall be bound by the undertaking given on its behalf by Shri Sarvesh Sharma, Advocate failing which the complainant may apply for implementation of the settlement. In this view of the matter, evidently, for the execution of the sale deed, the Appellant/complainant was required to perform his part as directed in the said order i.e. to furnish the requisite stamp duty for the execution of the conveyance deed and similarly certain things were to be performed by Respondent/OP-1 i.e. to execute the sale deed on receiving the said stamp duty and the balance consideration amount.

 

12.      It is the case of the Appellant that he was compelled to deposit the stamp duty for the amount of ₹3,69,500/- vide letter dated 3.3.2015 (Annexure C-6) sent by Respondent/OP-1 and due to the said letter, sale deed could not be executed in his favour for three years even after passing of the order by the Hon’ble National Commission and even after that OP-1 has executed the sale deed by compelling the complainant to deposit the stamp duty for the sum of ₹58,600/- which is also excessive and not payable by the complainant. As against the same, Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 while drawing our attention to letter dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure C-19) submitted that through the said letter complainant was asked by Respondent/OP-1 to approach the office of Sub Registrar, Tehsil Ghaziabad and on his satisfaction, purchase the stamp duty and deposit the same with OP-1. However, the Complainant chose not to provide requisite stamp papers and thus, the delay was on the part of the complainant and not due to any fault of Respondent/OP-1. 

 

13.      All this leads to an irresistible conclusion that it was Respondent/OP-1 who requested the Appellant/ complainant vide letter (Annexure C-19) to approach the office of Sub Registrar, Tehsil Ghaziabad and only after his satisfaction to purchase the deficient stamp papers, to deposit the same with OP-1, which the Appellant/Complainant accordingly did. To our mind, the Appellant/Complainant took amiss while alleging that he was compelled by Respondent/OP-1 to pay excessive stamp duty for the execution of the conveyance deed and the execution of sale deed was delayed due to fault of OP-1. 

 

14.      It has come on record that though initially Respondent/OP-1 had asked the Appellant/complainant to deposit the stamp duty for the sum of ₹3,69,500/- vide letter dated 3.3.2015, but, immediately after that vide letter dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure C-19), OP-1 had requested the complainant to approach the Sub Registrar, Tehsil Ghaziabad for the purchase of deficient stamp paper after making enquiry from the said office, submit the same with his photograph to OP-1 so that the conveyance deed could be executed in his favour. Thus, right from 12.10.2015 till 8.3.2018, the complainant, instead of submitting the deficient stamp papers for the sum of ₹58,600/-, opted to file the consumer complaint in the year 2019 despite of the fact that the sale deed (Annexure C-27) was immediately executed by OP-1 on 16.03.2018 after the submission of deficient stamp papers by the complainant on 08.03.2018. In this background, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly observed that had the complainant submitted the requisite stamp papers in the year 2015, when Respondent/OP-1 had issued letter dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure C-19) to him, the sale deed could have been executed in the same month itself and this act of the complainant shows that sale deed could not be executed in his favour due to non-performance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble National Commission in the order dated 9.2.2015 on his part only and not due to the fault of OP-1.

 

15.      The Appellant/complainant has also argued that Respondent/OP-1 has wrongly charged an amount of ₹28,877/- as lease rent, which was never ordered by the Hon’ble National Commission to pay. The Ld. Lower Commission has aptly considered this argument in its order, which is impugned before us, by recording a categorical finding that it is unsafe to hold that the said lease rent was illegally paid to OP-1 by the Appellant/complainant in view of the fact that three small consolidated plots i.e. 1003, 1010 and 1011 were allotted to the Appellant/complainant in lieu of the earlier allotted plot No.NK 1/356 which was duly accepted by the complainant at the time of settlement before the Hon’ble National Commission and the conveyance deed could have only been executed once the encumbrance has been cleared by the purchaser and as the complainant has only paid the requisite lease rent @10% qua plot No.1003 which was legally payable by him before getting the sale deed executed. No case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded ibid. 

 

16.      It is worthwhile to add here, per strength of the order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in case the Appellant/complainant was aggrieved by any act of Respondent/OP-1, he should have approached to the competent Commission for implementation of the order/settlement and not to file complaint. In these set of circumstances, the ruling “M/s Residents Welfare Association, Noida Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.”, 2009 (14) SCC 716  relied upon by the Appellant in support of his claim, to our mind, is totally misconceived and misapplied and as such, he cannot be allowed to derived any benefit therefrom especially when it has already been discussed that the delay in the execution of the sale deed was only due to the fault of the complainant and not of Respondent/OP-1.

 

17.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

18.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

19.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

20.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

03^rd Feb.,2023

              Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”