PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          Aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the M.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal in Appeal Nos. 2322/2004, 2331/2004 and 2333/2005, the original complainants Mr.Pramod Kumar Chauhan, Mr.C.M.Tiwari and Mr.Vasant Bonde have filed the present petitions.  The appeals before the State Commission were filed by the complainants as well as the opposite party-M.P.Housing Board against the order dated 04.12.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bhopal in complaint case no.448/2004, 449/2004 & 450/2004, by which order the District Forum had directed the M.P.Housing Board to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation to each of the three complainants for the deficiency in service  besides cost of  Rs.500/- in each case.  It would appear that in order to resolve the issue, the State Commission appointed a Chief Engineer of PWD of Govt. of M.P. to inspect the houses in question and to prepare report regarding defects in the houses and to prepare the estimate of expenditure required for removal of those defects.  The said engineer submitted his report and assessed the amount of expenditure required to remove the defects.  Going by the said report, the State Commission upgraded the relief so granted by the District Forum and directed the M.P.Housing Board to pay a sum of Rs.34,666/- to P.K.Chauhan complainant and Rs.32,716/- each to Mr. Vasant Bonde and C.M.Tiwari with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid to them within 60 days for carrying out the rectification of the defects on their own.  Cost was also increased to Rs.1500/- in each case.  Petitioners admit that the amount as per the order of the State Commission has already been paid to them.  It is also submitted by them that defect in regard to the sewer line has also been removed by the M.P.Housing Board.

2.       The petitioners have approached this Commission for another / subsisting relief i.e. in regard to the refund of the extra amount which they had to pay towards stamp duty and registration charges at the time of registration of the sale deed in the year 2004 in case of P.K.Chauhan and 2002 in the case of Vasant Bonde. Sale deed in respect of C.M.Tiwari is yet to be executed.  Mr.Tiwari prays for direction on M.P.Housing Board to execute the sale deed of the plot in question at the same price and he is willing to pay the amount of sale deed and registration charges as was payable by him in the year 2001 on the same plot of land. 

3.       We have heard petitioners in person and Mr. G.K.Shrivastava, Advocate, learned counsel representing M.P.Housing Board at length and have considered their respective submissions.  There is no denial of the position that both the fora below i.e. District Forum and State Commission have focussed their entire attention on the question of deficiency relating to the defects / deficiencies in construction of the houses as also in regard to the sewer line passing through the said houses and have overlooked the allegation in regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board in not executing the sale deed of the plot in question in their favour at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2001 after the plots were allotted to them pursuant to draw of lots held by M.P.Housing Board.  The petitioners have vehemently argued that as per the relevant scheme, M.P.Housing Board had taken a decision vide circular no.34/99 dated 28.07.99, operative part of which is extracted herein below:

“On analysing in the light of above facts it is directed that in those residential schemes the applicants booking under self finance scheme should in the beginning itself be prescribed the plot over which the house is proposed to be constructed, in the lottery and after prescribing the plot sale deed of such plot be not executed on obtaining at least the full cost of the plot in favour of the related allottee by the Board.  Before executing the sale deed from the beneficiary the post dated cheques for the full construction cost of the house required as per prescribed schedule be obtained and what ever the sale deed is executed in the favour of the allottee be kept as mortgage with the board.  And this mortgage will  be kept with the board as it is till the entire amount of complete construction as approved in the cost fixation is received by the board.  After receipt of the required amount this mortgage will be released and given to the allottee.

        Therefore, the concurrence from the registered allottee under self finance scheme in accordance with the above be obtained and following the procedure as mentioned, the plot allotment and execution of sale deed in favour of the allottee be got completed”. 

4.       A bare perusal of the above circular should not leave any doubt in anybody’s mind that although as per the brochure issued by the M.P.Housing Board, the Housing Board had decided to allot the constructed houses to the aspiring allottees but for the reasons which would be better known to the concerned authorities of the Housing Board, they had decided to split the scheme in two phases – first phase being allotment of the plot and execution of the sale deed in favour of the allottees on receipt of entire consideration of the plot and thereafter to start construction of houses on the respective plots once the allottees had submitted post dated cheques for the full consideration / cost of the construction and at the same time deposited the title deeds with the respondent – Housing Board as collateral security for the payment of cost of construction.  It appears that the said circular has been followed by the M.P.Housing Board more in breach than in compliance because despite receiving the full consideration of the cost of the plots, the M.P.Housing Board did not take requisite action to execute the registered sale deed of the plots of land and rather went with the construction of the houses. We are informed that work order of the construction of the houses at the plots of land was awarded as early as 2000 i.e. even before the allotment of the plots and receipt of consideration thereof.  It is, therefore, manifest that M.P.housing Board did not execute the sale deed of the plots of land despite having received full consideration thereof as far back in the year 2001 and this inaction on the part of the Housing Board has resulted into the loss / injury to the allottees because on the sale deeds executed in the year 2004 in favour of P.K.Chauhan and in 2002 in favour of Vasant Bonde had incurred additional stamp duty and registration charges to the extent of more than Rs. 40,000/- or so.

5.       Collector of Stamps and Registration authorities were well within their rights to ask for stamp duty and registration charges as per the value of the constructed houses because by that time the construction had been raised on the plots of land and what was then intended to be sold was not only the plot but also the construction executed on the plots of land.   We are, therefore, of the view that so far as this delay in execution of sale deed of the plots is concerned, the Housing Board is squarely deficient and it must compensate the petitioners namely, Vasant Bonde and P.K.Chauhan to the extent of additional amount they had incurred in the registration of the sale deeds in their favour.

6.       We are told that extra amount involved was more than Rs.42,000/- but we will round off this amount to Rs.40000/- in these two case.  In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it fit to grant any interest on these amounts to the said petitioners if the amount is paid within 45 days from the date of this order failing which it shall carry interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of default.

7.       The case of C.M.Tiwari is on somewhat different footing inasmuch as in his case even the sale deed has not been executed of the plot of land and the constructed house has not been executed till date.  Material has been placed on record from both the sides, the petitioners stating that it was due to the default of respondent – Housing Board that sale deed could not be executed while the learned counsel for  the Housing Board has contended that it was due to the default of the petitioner himself that sale deed could not executed although he made a promise to get it executed by filing affidavit in that behalf in the year 2003 at the time of taking possession  of the house.  Much has been said from both sides in this regard but having considered the material, we are of the view that if the two petitioners could get the sale deed executed in the year 2002 and 2004, there could not be any reason for the third petitioner not to get the sale deed executed during that period.

8.       In view of the material placed on record, we hold that both the sides are to be blamed in this regard.   We, therefore, consider it appropriate to treat the case of the petitioner C.M.Tiwari on the same footing to other two petitioners so far as grant of relief to him is concerned.  We, therefore, direct the respondent – Housing Board to execute the sale deed of the house in question in favour of petitioner  C.M.Tiwari within a period of eight weeks from today.  Liability to bear the stamp duty and registration charges will be that of the petitioner – C.M.Tiwari. However, a sum of Rs.40,000/- shall be paid by M.P.Housing Board towards the cost of stamp duty and registration charges.  We have made this order in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.   All the revision petitions are disposed of in the above terms.