Punjab

Sangrur

CC/930/2015

Raj Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvement Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

13 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

            

                                                Complaint No.  930

                                                Instituted on:    28.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       13.05.2016

 

Raj Rani W/o Shri Bhagwat Sarup Goyal, R/O B-II/314, Padhian Street, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Improvement Trust, Sunam Road, Sangrur through its Executive Officer.

2.     Chairman, Improvement Trust, Sunam Road, Sangrur.

3.     The Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rajinder Goyal, Advocate.

For Opposite parties         :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Raj Rani, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Ops by purchasing one Shop cum Flat (referred to as SCF in short) bearing number 24 in 7.4 Acres Kaula Park Scheme vide allotment letter number 1582 dated 18.7.1988 for Rs.80,000/-.    Further case of the complainant is that earlier in the year 2010, there was a scheme/notification of Govt. of Punjab as per which the sale deed of the property allotted by the Govt. to the allottees shall be executed at the allotment rates, as such, the complainant visited the Ops at that time for getting the sale of the SCF in her favour, but all in vain.  Thereafter the Government issued similar notification which was enforceable up to 30.9.2011, as such she again approached the Ops for the same and made a written request to the Ops on 8.9.2011 and submitted all the documents such as, indemnity bond etc. for the same, but all in vain despite serving of legal notice dated 26.9.2011 upon the Ops.  It is further averred that thereafter the Govt. issued again a notification for getting the sale deed executed up to 7th June, 2015, as such, the complainant approached the Ops, but again nothing was done. Lastly, the complainant again got served a legal notice dated 19.5.2015 upon the OPs through her counsel requesting them to get the sale deed executed in her favour as per the notification, but the Ops gave a vague reply dated 26.5.2015 directing the complainant to submit a copy of sanctioned map, copy of electricity bill, copy of completion map of the SCF.  It is further averred that since the complainant had completed the construction since long and submitted the completion certificate in the office of the OPs, otherwise the OPs would have charged non construction fee from the complainant, as such it is stated that the Ops have been demanding the documents again and again without any reason.  As such, it is stated that the act and conduct of the Ops in non execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency and negligence on the part of the OPs.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to get the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant in respect of SCF number 24 on the allotment rate as per the notification issued by the Govt. of Punjab and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false and frivolous one, as the OPs are always ready to get the sale deed registered in her name subject to submission of the copy of sanctioned map, copy of first electricity bill, copy of completion certificate/map along with the duly attested affidavit  and NOC regarding the no construction fee, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant never visited the OPs, that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the plot/SCF number 24 was allotted to the complainant on 18.07.1988 under 7.4 acre Kaula Park Scheme vide allotment memo number 1582 dated 18.7.1988.  It is stated further that the complainant has already get the possession of the plot/SCF from the Ops as per clause 7 of the allotment letter, but she had to complete the building within three years from the date of allotment. The complainant had to submit the documents showing the construction of SCF, so that the sale deed could be executed in her favour, but she failed to do so.  It is stated further that the complainant never approached the Ops regarding the execution of the sale deed. It has also been averred in the reply that the Ops written so many letters to the complainant to construct the SCF. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of allotment letter, Ex.C-2 copy of payment schedule, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-14 copies of receipts, Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-20 copies of letters, Ex.C-21 copy of public notice, Ex.C-22 copy of letter, Ex.C-23 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-24 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-25 copy of letter, Ex.C-26 to Ex.C-30 copies of newspaper cuttings, Ex.C-31 copy of affidavit dated 18.12.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of allotment letter, Ex.OP-3 copy of payment Schedule, Ex.Op-4 copy of application, Ex.OP-5 copy of letter, Ex.OP-6 copy of letter, Ex.OP-7 copy of letter, Ex.OP-8 copy of application, Ex.OP-9 to Ex.OP-13 copies of letters, Ex.OP-14 copies of agreement to sell, Ex.OP-15 copy of affidavit, Ex.OP-16 copy of letter, Ex.OP-17 copy of application, Ex.OP-18 copy of letter, Ex.OP-19 copy of letter, Ex.OP-20 copy of authority letter, Ex.OP-21 copy of tender form, Ex.OP-22 copy of receipt, Ex.OP-23 copy of bid sheet and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

       

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that SCF number 24 in 7.4 acres Kaula Park scheme were allotted to the complainant vide letter/memo number 1582 dated 18.7.1988 by the OPs against the payment of Rs.80,000/-.  It is further not in dispute that the complainant has paid the full value of the SCF in question to the OPs. 

 

6.             In the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that she has already constructed the building of the SCF in question upto 31.12.1998 and the intimation of which was given to the Ops and as such she requested the Ops for getting the sale deed of the SCF registered in her favour.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that since the complainant has paid whole of the amount against the purchase of the SCF, it is not open for the OPs to withheld the execution of the sale deeds on any ground, more so when she has already completed the construction work of  SCF upto 31.12.1998.  On the other side, the stand of the Ops is that the complainant has not constructed the SCF till date, as she has not submitted the copy of sanctioned map, copy of first electricity bill, copy of  completion certificate along with other documents, as such, the Ops are unable to get the sale deeds registered in favour of the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that the Ops have not produced on record any rules/regulations, whereby they have been authorised to demand such documents to get the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant.  We have also perused the copy of the allotment letter of the SCF Ex.C-1, wherein it is no where mentioned that sale deed only will be got registered in favour of the allottee, in case she submits the above said documents such as, sanctioned map, copy of first electricity bill, copy of  completion certificate.  Further Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12, Ex.C-14 are the Photostat copies of the receipts showing the payment of cost of SCF number 24 made to the Ops, which even includes the extension fee etc.   Ex.C-13 is the copy of receipt dated 27.11.1998 showing the payment of Rs.13,980/- on account of site plan fee, which clearly shows that the complainant got passed the site plan from the Ops and only thereafter the construction was raised and completed upto 31.12.1998. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that full consideration of the SCF has already been paid to the OPs, but despite that the OPs are not going to get registered the sale deed of the SCF in question, despite best efforts of the complainant and even in the last had to approach this Forum for the same.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that in so many cases, the OPs even get registered the sale deed of the vacant plot even without constructing the same, but in the present case, despite construction of the SCF in question, the Ops are adamant to not to get registered the sale deed of the SCF to the complainant on flimsy grounds.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why they did not got registered the sale deed in the present case, more so when it is on the record that the construction of the SCF has already been completed in 1998 and intimated to the OPs. 

 

8.             Further it is worth mentioning here further that the Ops have miserably failed to produce on record any rules/regulations entitling them to seek various documents such as sanctioned map, copy of first electricity bill, copy of  completion certificate to get the sale registered in favour of the complainant.  As such, we feel that the Ops are demanding the above mentioned documents only to harass the complainant, more so when the Government of Punjab is issuing repeatedly notifications/letters to get the sale deeds of the plot/booth holders in their favour on original allotment price. To support this contention, the complainant has produced Ex.C-26 copy of the pamphlet,  copy of newspaper clippings Ex.C-27 to Ex.C-30. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Shikar Sahkari Avas Samithi versus Praveen Singh 2003(2) CPC 596 (NC), wherein complainant was allotted a plot and whole cost of the plot i.e. Rs.68,310/- was paid and the possession was delivered, but registration deed was not executed. The State Commission directed the OP/Petitioner to execute the sale deed and also to pay Rs.9000/- as compensation and cost, which was upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission.  As such, on this score, we find that the OPs are also deficient in rendering service to the complainant by not getting executed the sale deed of the SCF in question.

    

9.             Further the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the  letter dated 14.5.2015 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, which has been addressed to various authorities including all the Executive Officers of Improvement Trust including Improvement Trust Sangrur, whereby they have drawn attention towards the letter number 10/58/07-4SS2/1475 dated 23.09.2009 and of the decision taken in the meeting held on 27.8.2009 of all the Chairmen of the Improvement Trusts of Punjab.  It is worth mentioning here that in the meeting held on 27.08.2009 under the chairmanship of Shri Manoranjan Kalia, the then Cabinet Minister for Local Government, which was also attended by Shri K.K. Moudgill, the then Chairman of Improvement Trust, Sangrur, whose name is figured at serial number 24, whereby it was decided that the sale deeds be got registered in the name of first allottee.  It has been further stated that compoundable/non compoundable valuation should not be connected with the sale deeds and further it was advised that the camps for getting the sale deeds registered be organised.  But, we may mention that the Ops have intentionally, wilfully and with malafide intention has withheld/concealed the above said letters dated 27.8.2009 and 14.5.2015 from this Forum, which again clearly reveals that the Ops have not come to the Court with clean hands.  Reliance can be placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gopal Krishnaji Kekar versus Mohamed Haji Latif and others AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1413, wherein it has been clearly held that a party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy withholding it, the court ought to draw an adverse inference against him not withstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him. Party cannot rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon to produce it. The learned counsel for the Ops could not explain why they did not produce the above said letter/notification before this Forum.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that the OPs have deliberately and with malafide intention did not produce the above said letter dated 14.5.2015 on record, as the Ops were bent upon to harass the complainant in getting the sale deed of the SCF in question registered in her name. As such, an adverse inference is drawn against the Ops for  concealing/suppression of the said letter.  Moreover, the Government of Punjab is giving benefits to the public in public interest and the Ops are deliberately concealing such letters/notifications and are filing false affidavits before this Forum.

 

10.           It is further contended vehemently by the learned counsel for the complainant that that the OP is a Government Department, who conducts surveys whether actually the plot holders have raised the construction or not.  The Ops have not produced any such documentary evidence on record to show that actually when the survey of the Kaula Park scheme was conducted and what were the SCF/SCFs which were not constructed by their owners.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the office of the Ops was also existing in this scheme at a distance of under 100 meters from the premises of the complainant, which was later on shifted to another place. The Ops have not denied this fact and further   there is no explanation of the Ops on this point also.

 

11.           The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that it is not open for the Ops to recover any penalty etc even non construction fee, when there is no condition in the allotment letter for charging the same.  To support such a contention, he has cited Improvement Trust, Barnala versus Mrs. Shashi Kansal 1999(2) CLT (651), wherein it has been held that without incorporating any such terms and conditions in the allotment letter, the appellant was not authorised legally to impose penalty for non construction of buildings on the plot in dispute.  The Trust was not legally entitled to claim the amount and the order of District Forum granting refund of the same upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission. It has been further held that since there is no provision in the allotment letters referred in the case authorising the Improvement Trust to charge penalty on account of non construction on the plots in dispute. Even if the State Government had issued such instructions, it was incumbent upon the Improvement Trust to incorporate such terms and conditions as part of the allotment letters. In the absence of that, Improvement Trust was not authorised legally to impose penalty for non construction of buildings on the plots in dispute. It is not for the Forum to state about the other remedies available to the Improvement Trust on account of breach of the terms and conditions of allotment referred to above.  Since the Improvement Trust was not legally entitled to claim the amount of Rs.27675/- in respect of each of the plots referred in the case, the order of the District Forum granting refund of the same was justified and the appeal of the Improvement Trust was dismissed.

 

12.           Further the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that if in any case, dispute or differences or any claim arises upon the agreement, then the matter should be referred to the Commissioner, Patiala Division for arbitration.  But, in the present case, there are no such circumstances.  However, this Forum is competent and has jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Skypak Couriers Limited versus Tata Chemicals Limited AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2008, wherein it has been clearly held that the National Consumer Commission cannot refer dispute to consensual adjudication by a third person dehors Arbitration Act and pass orders based on such decisions.   Moreover, it is an additional remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the  powers under the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. No law to the contrary has been cited before us by the learned counsel for the OPs.

 

13.           Now, coming to the point of illegal construction raised by the complainant in constructing the SCF. A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that the Ops have not even uttered a single word in the written reply that the complainant has raised any such illegal construction on the SCF, nor from the year 1999 to 2015, the Ops have issued any notice about the same, as such, we feel that there is no such illegal construction on the SCF raised by the complainant, in the absence of any plea raised by the Ops in the written reply as well as in the affidavit of Smt. Neeru Bala, Ex.OP-1. Further it is worth mentioning here that if there would have been any illegal construction of the SCF, then the Ops would not have slept over the matter as is seen in the present case.

 

14.           In view of the above discussion and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has completed the construction of SCF number 24 upto 31.12.1998 and the OPs intentionally and with malafide intention have  miserably failed to get the sale deed of  the SCF number 24 executed in the favour of the complainant, more so when she has already paid all the cost of the SCF as admitted by the Ops.  In the circumstances, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to get the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant on the allotment rates as prescribed by the Government of Punjab from time to time through advertisements and by way of various letters.  To support this contention, reliance can also be placed on the notification number G.S.R.20/C.A.2/1899/S75/Amd.(8)2015 dated 8^th April, 2015 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue, Rehabilitation and Disaster Management (Stamp and Registration Branch), wherein it has been clearly mentioned that it shall come into force on and with effect from the date of their publication in the official Gazette.  The relevant para 3 of the notification is reproduced as “3-B.  Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 3-A, the rate fixed for allotment of the fixed price or at the price accepted after public auction of an immovable property by the Government or a Public Sector undertaking or a Local Body, shall be deemed to be the Collector’s rate as fixed under Rule 3-A of such property and the Stamp Duty shall be charged for registration of instrument of such property at the rate so fixed, at the time of execution of first conveyance deed of such property; provided the conveyance deed has been got registered within a period of two months from the date of issue of this notification after making full payment of the price as per the schedule fixed for payment in respect of such property and whose possession has been handed over, as the case may be.”.  In the present case, the complainant is approaching the Ops to get the sale deed registered even before issuance of this notification, but it is the Ops who put the matter on one pretext or the other and did not bother to get the sale deed of the SCF in question registered in favour of the complainant, despite her best efforts.

 

 

15.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to get the sale deed of SCF number 24 registered in favour of the complainant on the allotment rate. However, it is made clear that the expenses on the sale deed shall be borne by the complainant herself.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

16.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records. 

                Pronounced.

                May 13, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                              Member

                                                       

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member