Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, President
Heard Mr.S.R.Singh-Advocate for the complainant.
The complainant is a businessman and he has entered into a transaction with the opponent. Complainant is carrying on a business of piling work in the foundation to support the multistoried buildings. Especially, pile foundations are necessary when the soil on which the construction is to be carried out is a black cotton soil. Opponent no.1 is carrying on a business in the name and style 1) M/s.Dinesh Construction Co. -Builders and Developers and 2) M/s.S.B.Construction Co.-Builders & Developers. Opponent no.2 is a partnership firm, namely, M/s.Dinesh Construction Co. of which the opponent no.1 is a partner. Similarly, opponent no.3 is M/s.S.B.Construction Co. and its one of the partners is opponent no.1. It further appears that the opponent wanted to start a site at Mira Road and, therefore, complainant had submitted quotation dated 27/01/1994 for the pile foundation work. As per quotation, it appears that the work order was issued to the complainant on 20/02/1994. The work was carried out by the complainant as per the quotation with the opponent no.1 but as a partner of opponent no.3. It appears that some amount was due and, therefore, out of that due amount `4,00,000/- were adjusted by opponent nos.1&2 and, thereby, the agreement for sale was executed in respect of flat no.A-302 carpet /built up/super built-up area 775 sq.ft. on third floor of the building known as Shalibhadra Gram ‘C’. Price of the flat was agreed to `4 lakhs. Copy of the said document has been produced on record. However, said document does not bear the date though it is signed by the parties to the document. Said document is an unregistered one. Ld.counsel further states that the original of the said document is not with the complainant. However, it appears from another document which is though executed by the parties to the said agreement is undated, it is reduced on stamp paper which was sold by the Stamp Vendor on 14/07/1998. Though the date is not there but the document shows month and year i.e.August 1998 and parties to the said document are Mr.Nawaz Ali Hasmullah Chaudhary -complainant and Mr.Sunil Kumar Kanhayalal Shukla. Mr.Nawaz Ali Hasmullah Chaudhary-complainant has been shown as a ‘Vendor’ while Mr.Sunil Kumar Kanhayalal Shukla has been shown as a ‘Purchaser’. This document is in respect of the flat described above. It is stated in the said document that the said flat has been purchased by the vendor, namely, complainant from opponent no.1. Thereafter, said flat has been sold by the complainant by this document to Mr.Shukla who has been shown as a purchaser of the flat. Though the date is not on record, yet it is an admitted fact that the complainant had received possession of the flat at the time of execution of this document for sale in favour of Mr.Shukla and possession of the flat has been given to Mr.Shukla by the complainant. This document is also not a registered document. However, the fact remains that the flat was purchased by the complainant in lieu of and in consideration of the due amount from the opponent no.1 for the piling work which was carried out by the complainant and the complainant has sold the said property to Mr.Shukla. Both these documents are unregistered documents, which under the Act should have been compulsorily registered. The complainant has sold the flat for consideration of `4,50,000/-. Thus, he has earned the profit out of the said transaction.
At this juncture, Ld.counsel tried to submit that this is not a sale in favour of Mr.Shukla but it is a mortgage and he further submitted that such is a practice in Mumbai. What we find that if we scrutinize the whole complaint and the documents along with the complaint, complainant is not a potential user of the premises purchased. He was not desirous of purchasing this property for his own use but the opponent no.1 was to pay certain amount to the complainant for the work of piling carried out and to adjust such amount, these unregistered documents inter-se were executed and, ultimately, complainant disposed of the property. Complainant since has sold the property cannot be covered by the definition of ‘Consumer’. The transaction is of 1994. Prayers are made for execution of sale deed. In fact such a relief at such a belated stage in respect of transaction cannot be granted. On the contrary, such type of business is a commercial transaction and the consumer complaint based on such transaction should be discouraged. Consumer Fora are meant for the genuine buyers and genuine consumers and not the persons who are carrying on their commercial transactions under the garb of Consumer Law. If such types of complaints are permitted, the very purpose and object for which the Parliament has enacted this benevolent legislation will be frustrated and, therefore, there is no other alternative but to reject the complaint in limine.
We have already observed that such complaint is required to be dealt with stern iron hands and, therefore, we impose costs of `10,000/- for filing such a complaint. Costs should be deposited within a period of one month to the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission so that it can be used for welfare of the consumers. If the amount is not deposited within a period of one month, Registrar shall issue certificate u/sec.25(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and recover the said amount through the Collector.
We have already observed that the documents, namely, Agreement for sale and the sale document are unregistered documents and on the basis of these unregistered documents transactions have been carried out. These documents have been produced before the State Commission by way of evidence to support the claim. In fact, both these documents are to be compulsorily registered documents and, thereby, complainant and the opponents both have evaded stamp duty and registration charges and, thus, have caused loss of revenue to the Government. Therefore, these documents are required to be sent to the Collector for appropriate valuation and recovery of the stamp duty and penalty. Collector is supposed to recover the amount under section 33 of the Stamp Act or under any other powers vested with him. Registrar is hereby directed to prepare copies of both these documents and sent it to the Collector, Thane. Collector, Thane is hereby directed to take appropriate proceeding under the Stamp Act and Registration Act for evading the duties. With these directions, the complaint stands rejected. Order accordingly.
Pronounced on 28th January, 2013.
