Delhi

North East

CC/105/2016

Khurshid Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bright Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:

DISTRICT NORTH EAST - IV

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.105/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Khurshid Khan W/o Sh. Iqbal Khan R/o D-1/UF-1, Upper First Floor, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-95	Complainant
	Versus
1.	M/s Bright Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Sh. Shiv Kumar Office At: F-2/34 Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51.
2.	The Sub Registrar, IV-A Bunkar Bhawan Nand Nagri, Delhi-93.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	11.04.2015
	DATE OF DECISION      :	09.07.2016

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

 

Order

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging that in pursuance of Agreement to sell of flat bearing No. D-1/UF-1, Dilshad Extension - 1 now known as Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095, OP1 executed sale deed in her favour and they submitted the same for registration in the office of OP2. OP2 also got deposited Rs. 22,600/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred Only) as Registration Charges from complainant. OP2 received Registration Fee on 21.09.2011 but did not release the submitted Sale Deed after its registration. Since then complainant has been visiting OP2 time and again and requesting to provide the said registered Sale Deed but it is not providing the same. Complainant is also visiting OP1 but both the OPs are shifting the obligation on one another. During one of its visits OP1 shown a representation made by it to OP2 on 30.03.2012, thereby requesting to get the sale deed released. Thereafter, complainant on her visit, in April 2013, to OP1, was told that some Mr. Ram Mani Pandey had made false complaints qua this property. That is why OP2 was not releasing the sale deed. But now OP2 shall release the same, since all said complaints / cases have been settled and now this property is clear from all disputes/ complaints. Copy of Settlement Deed executed between the two on 23.02.2013 was also given to the complainant by OP1, who further assured her to be in continuous touch with OP2, requesting to release the Sale Deed. Thereafter, she approached OP2 but OP2 didn’t release the same. Again on approaching OP1 in October 2015 and February 2016, OP1, shown its representations dated 23.03.2013 and 30.3.2015 to OP2. But again OP2 asked the complainant to approach OP1 only. In this manner both the OPs are shifting the obligation on one another and are not providing the Sale Deed.
2. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs complainant has prayed for release of sale deed, submitted on 21.9.2011, after registration, by OP2 alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 11,000/-.
3. After notices both the OPs appeared and filed their respective replies. OP1 by filing its reply has contended that there is no deficiency on its part as it has neither refused execution of sale deed not interfered in the process of registration of the same and is always ready and willing to perform his part and to sign all the documents pertaining to transfer of property in question. To show its bonafide OP1 has pleaded that on various occasion it has written to OP2 requesting release of Sale Deed, informing that all disputes between it and Mr. Ram  Mani Pandey have been settled and that said Mr. Ram Mani Pandey has no concern with the said property. OP1 has referred representations sent to OP2 and Deputy Commissioner on 19.04.2016 besides earlier representations as complainant has also referred to, for release of Sale Deed. OP1 also states that it is unable to understand under what provision and capacity OP2 is denying the release of Sale Deed. OP1 has fulfilled all its obligations under the contract. There is no deficiency on its part and it is OP2 only who has failed to discharge its obligation. Admitting that Mr. Ram Mani Pandey filed false and frivolous complaints qua this property, op1 states that Mr. Pandey has withdrawn the cases and has made statements before concerned authorities / courts  in this regard. In support of its contentions OP1 has placed on record copies of representations and two orders. One passed by DRT-III, Delhi on 24.04.2012 in SA No. 117 of 2010 titled as Shri Ashwani Kumar Shukla Vs P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. and other by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, passed on 23.08.2013 in Civil Suit No. 1696 of 2010 titled as M/s Bright Buildwell (P) Ltd. V/s Ram Mani Pandey.
4. OP2 by filing its reply has contended that as per circular 1/92/RB/Divcom/HQ/2012/311-320 dated 12.11.2014 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, GNCTD as mentioned at para 8 (ii) that the Sub Registrar shall not keep any document pending on the ground of complaint made by any party unless there is a stay order granted by court of law to maintain status quo or restraining the transfer of property. OP2 has referred an status quo order dated 07.02.2011 passed in Appeal and Misc. Appeal of S.A. No. 117/10, bearing No. 285/10 and 331/10 respectively titled as M/s Bright Buildwell (P) Ltd V/s P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Copy of this order is also placed on record by OP2 in support of its contention. Due to this order OP2 can’t release the Sale Deed. OP2 also pleads pending of criminal complaint in Karkardooma Court but failed, to provide particulars whereof and/ or to show any order binding it to release the Sale Deed.
5. The case was relisted for filing of Rejoinder by the complainant to the replies of both the OPs and its evidence. But complainant states that she need not to file the rejoinders and evidence as OP1 has taken no defence while OP2 has not specifically denied any of the averments of complaint but that, it is bound by status quo order.
6. Now as per all the parties the only question to decide remains as to whether status quo order passed by Hon’ble Appelette Tribnul as referred by OP2, is still in existence or not. As per OP2 in case the stay is vacated it has no objection to register the sale deed.
7. Since, only a legal question is involved no factual evidence is required and all the parties have agreed that order may be passed in terms of the orders placed on record by all the parties.
8. We have heard all the parties and perused the record. OP1 has not disputed the settlement deed annexed with the complaint. Rather as per op1, the Settlement Deed has become part of order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Suit aforesaid. OP2 has neither admitted the settlement deed nor raised any objection with respect to the same.
9. Perusal of order dated 7.2.2011 passed in Appeal No. 285/10 (supra) show that vide its order Mr. J M Malik Chairperson of Applette Tribunal has held that “the parties to this case are specifically directed to maintain the status quo in respect of properties till the interim order or final order to be passed by lower court”. Perusal of final order dated 24.04.2012 passed by DRT III Delhi in SA No. 117/10 (supra) show that the SA has been dismissed by Hon’ble DRT III Delhi rejecting claim of the applicant of being valid lessee and holding his eviction by P N B Housing Finance Ltd. as valid one. Another order is of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi passed by it on 23.08.2013, in Civil Suit NO. 1696 of 2010 (Supra) Hon’ble High Court has disposed of this suit in terms of the joint application No. 4834/13 moved by both parties u/o XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per this order Hon’ble High Court has held “The settlement deed is taken on record and shall form part of the present order. The parties are bound by the terms & conditions of the settlement deed. Hon’ble High Court has further held “The suit and the pending applications are disposed of as satisfied in terms of settlement as set out in the application No. 1A  4834 of 13.”
10. Now as per Appellate Court of DRT status quo order was subject to final decision in original case i.e. S.A. 117/10 (Supra). SA No. 117/10 (Supra) has been finally decided by DRT-III, Delhi vide its order dated 24.04.2012. By this order SA has been dismissed. In view of dismissal order status quo order has automatically been vacated. Hence, OP2 is no more bound by status quo order. Regarding other disputes with respect to property in question, the same have already been finalized in terms of settlement deed dated 23.02.2013 which has also been made a part of order dated 23.08.2013 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Suit No. 1696 of 2010. Hence, no dispute with respect to this property remains anymore. Even thereafter, if any of the OPs is not performing its part of service, in providing a duly executed and registered Sale Deed, it shall be a clear deficiency on its part.
11. Regarding allegation of deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, OP1 has duly executed and submitted for registration the sale deed in favour of complainant. Thereafter, it becomes the duty of OP2 to register and release the Sale Deed. Record shows that OP1 made number of representations/ requests for release of Sale Deed. Thus, OP1 has done its best it could do within its powers and control and it was never deficient in service. Regarding OP2, after status quo order it was binding on it and it could not release the Sale Deed unless the order was vacated. Regarding information of vacation of status quo order, though representations by OP1 are not denied by OP2 but we find nothing on record to show that vacation order/dismissal order in S.A. 117/10 and order in civil suit (supra) were supplied to OP2.
12. On the basis of above findings in our view there was no deliberate deficiency on the part of OP2, till the filing of present complaint, but now as OP2 has got the above order according to which status quo order has been vacated and retaining the Sale Deed in question anymore shall be deficiency on the part of OP2. Therefore, we direct OP2 to release the Sale Deed, dated 21.09.2011, executed by OP1 in favour of complainant with respect to flat bearing No. D-1/UF-1, Dilshad Extension - 1 now known as Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095 Within a week from the receipt of this order. Beyond which OP2 shall be liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 1000/- per day for the delay caused in delivering the Sale deed, to the complainant, beside action for non compliance of the order.
13. All the parties shall bear their own costs.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
15. File be consigned to record room.

                         

(Transferred)

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi)             Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member