Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1063/2013

S.C. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. UMA Aggarwal - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jul 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1063/13                                                                                                                                                                             Dated:

In the matter of:

1. S. C Sharma,

        S/o Late Pt. Sham Lal Sharma,

2. Alka Sharma

        D/o Sh. S.C Sharma,

Both R/o 47, Vasant Appartments,

Mayur Vihar Phase-I Extn.,

Delhi-110091

……..COMPLAINANTS

       

VERSUS

Uma Aggarwal, Director,

M/s. Sunglow Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

10-11, New Rajdhani Enclave,

Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

 

The Complaint pertains to deficiency on the part of OP, who is Director of Sunglow Builders (P) ltd., who did not issue a No Objection and Free Hold property certificate to Complainants, who being father and daughter jointly purchased an office space F 501, Pocket no.18 in the Ashish Corporate Town in Community Centre at Karkardooma Court, Delhi. The possession the same space was given to them on 18.06.04, and they wanted to get it registered in their name, for which they required no objection and free hold certificate from OP. The OP had already been paid charged Rs.16,888/- towards free hold charges, vide receipt of OP dated 18.06.04, at the time of taking possession on 18.06.14, which is placed on record at page 14 of complaint.

The OP filed a reply. It has not disputed any factual aspect and has taken only two main pleas. First, that the property is in East Delhi, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, and Second, that complainants are not ‘Consumer’, as the office space is for commercial purpose. It is also stated that free hold certificate and no objection is not required for registration, and property is already fee hold.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material and heard submissions. In so far as question of justice is concerned, the Hon’ble State Commission has held in the case of Holy Faith vs. Living Media that Delhi is one district, and at the stage of final arguments, this plea is meaningless as Delhi is one District. As for the second plea, it is to be noted that both the complainants are advocates as stated in the complaint to Police Commissioner attached with complaint and have taken the property for office use of their as Advocates, for the own livelihood. This permitted under the definition of ‘Consumer’. This plea is rejected. The OP has no ‘locus standi’ to question right of complainants for registration  or to contest the need of complainants for no objection to register or to need of property being free hold for DDA, for their own purposes.

We thus hold OP guilty of deficiency, in failing to given No Objection and Free hold certificate as requested by Complainant, who have purchased this property from OP.

We accordingly direct OP to issue:

1. No Objection certificate to Complainant for registration.
2. A certificate that property is free holds with DDA, with definition of Conveyance Deed.
3. And to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for deficiency and litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

Pronounced in open Court on 27.07.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER