PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                         CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 150/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Mst. Manju Sablaka,

W/O- Late Binod Kumar Sablaka

R/O-Badbazar (Near Mudhi Mill), PO/Ps-Khetrajpur,

City/Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768003.                                    ….…......Complainant.

                                    -Vrs.-

Odisha State Financial Corporation, Sambalpur Branch,

Represented through Branch Manager, NH-6, Ainthapali,

PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768004,Odisha.                                   …………........Opp.Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. Prem Prakash Panigrahi, Adv.
2. For the O.P.                        :- Sri. H.C. Dani & Associates

Date of Filing:27.09.2023,Date of Hearing :12.02.2024,Date of Judgement :12.03.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the wife of deceased Binod Kumar Sablaka. Binod Kumar died on 18.03.2023. The O.P. sold 7.4 decs. of land Khata No. 631 plot No. 1216(p) corresponds to Hamid Khata No. 434 Plot No. 294(P). Mouza-Sambalpur Town Unit No.8, Badabazar after receiving consideration amount of Rs. 4.21 lakhs vide letter dated 31.05.2005. The O.P. could not register the plot although it was represented on 12.01.2022 before D.S.R., Sambalpur as status of the land is “Anabadi”. Due to negligent act of the O.P. Binod Kumar died in stress and due to decline in health. The O.P. issued letter dated 23.05.2023 to Ravikant Sablaka S/O-Binod Kumar explaining the rigmarole in registration of the plot.

Due to deficiency in service of the OP the Complainant’s family has been dragged to litigations having no any fault. The O.P. is liable for compensation at present market value of the land.

2. The O.P. in reply submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. and complaint is not maintainable. The transaction is purely commercial transaction of an industrial unit. M/S Mahalazmi Ice cum Oil Industries, Sambalpur through Proprietor Gajanand Babaiwala availed term loan of Rs. 42,700/- from O.P. during 1975-76. The land of Khata No. 631 plot No. 1216- Ac 0.074 decs was hypothecated. The O.P. corporation took over the industrial asset u/s 29 of SFCs Act, 1951 on 04.01.1997 and put public auction in BDLC meeting held on 25.02.2005. vide sale letter No. 1593 dated 05.03.2005, physical possession of the asset made over to Binod Kumar Sablaka.

On 10.03.2021 Binod Kumar requested the O.P. for registration. On 04.08.2021 the deed of transfer was presented before DSR, Sambalpur. Vide letter dated 01.09.2021 intimated the O.P. that the registration of deed is not permissible as status of the land in ‘Anabadi’ W.P.(c) No. 37748 of 2021 was filed by the O.P. Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 21.12.2021 passed order and observed that on presentation of deed of transfer the DSR, Sambalpur will cause registration or issue refusal memo under section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The O.P. on 12.01.2022 presented the deed of transfer. The D.S.R., Sambalpur vide letter No. 78 dated 12.01.2022 refused to register and intimated to settle the industrial land under the O.G.L.S. Act. One Pradeep Kumar Meher also on 17.12.2021 filed objection showing pending of OGLS case No. 16/2010.

On OGLS Case No. 16/2010 the Tahasildar, Sambalpur issued notices and the O.P. appeared on 23.02.0222, filed its objection. The Tahsildar, Sambalpur vide order adted 02.03.2022 directed the O.P. to settle the land before appropriate authority. The O.P. filed Revision Petition No. 498/2022 before Addl. Commissioner Consolidation and settlement, Sambalpur. The revision petition was disposed of on 14.11.2022 and rejected the petition on the ground that nazul land can not be settled by the revisional authority. W.P.(c) NO. 8229/2023 was preferred before hon’ble High court, Orissa. Hon’ble High Court, Orissa dismissed the writ questioning the entertainability of the issue u/s 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and settlement Act and advised to approach common law Forum.

Against the order of the single judge W.A. No. 819/2012 was preferred and in I.A. No. 2093/2023 directed the parties to maintain status-quo.

For the pending of writ Appeal this complaint is not maintainable.

3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and O.P. The Complainant filed:

1. Letter No. 395 dated 23.06.2005 acknowledge the receipt of Rs. 4.21 lakh consideration from Binod Kumar.
2. Letter No. 78 dated 12.01.2022 of DSR, Sambalpur to the O.P.
3. Letter No. 51 dated 23.05.2023 of the O.P. Rabikanta Sablaka.
4. Valuation Report property dated 10.09.2023 made by Er. Srikant Kumar Sablaka.

The O.P. filed the following documents:

1. Letter No. 1593 dated 23.06.2005 of the O.P.
2. Letter No. 395 dated 23.06.2005 of the O.P. to Binod Kumar along with acknowledgement of property.
3. Order in W.A. No. 819/2023 of Hon’ble High Court, Orissa.
4. Sale notice dated 07.02.2005.
103606587.  

4. Basing on the statement of the parties and documents filed following issues are framed:

1. Whether the Complainant is not a consumer of O.P. and this complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the O.P. is deficient in its service by not registering the sale deed in favour of Binod Kumar or his legal heirs.
3. Whether pendency of W.A. No. 819/2023 before the Hon’ble  High Court, Orissa is a bar for this Commission to decide the issue of deficiency in service?
4. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Whether the Complainant is not a consumer of O.P. and this complaint is maintainable?

It is the admission of both the parties that for the land of Sambalpur Town Unit No.8, Badbazar Khata No. 631 plot No. 1216(p) 0.074 decs the O.P. made auction sale and vide letter No. 395 dated 23.06.2005 the O.P. acknowledge the receipt of Rs. 4.21 lakhs from Binod Kumar, husband of Complainant. The O.P. made over the possession of asset on 23.06.2005. The Complainant is in physical possession of the land.

As per section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ‘Complainant’ includes legal heirs or legal representative of deceased consumer. Being the widow of deceased Binod Kumar, the Complainant has locus standi to file the Complaint. Second point of consideration is that the land in question is an industrial land. The deceased purchased the plot to meet residential house site for the growing family which in prime location of Sambalpur Town. The O.P. submitted that the transaction is a purely commercial transaction. In the advertisement of sale notice the O.P. not specifically mentioned it that it is only for industrial purpose only. The O.P. failed to establish that for commercial purpose the collateral asset has been purchased by the purchaser Binod Kumar.

The issue is answered in favour of the Complainant.

Issue No. 2Whether the O.P. is deficient in its service by not registering the sale deed in favour of Binod Kumar or his legal heirs. 

From the sale notice dated 07.02.2005 and letter No. 1593 dated 05.03.2005 it reveals that the purchaser as specified in the notice and letter respectively deposited the full consideration amount within 90 days of communication of sale letter. Vide letter No. 395 dated 23.06.2005 the O.P. acknowledged the receipt of payment and delivered the possession of land and building.

After delivery of the land it was duty of the O.P. to register the land and building in favour of deceased Binod Kumar. It is submitted by the O.P. that Binod Kumar on 10.3.2021 requested the corporation for registration of the deed of transfer before the D.S.R. Sambalpur. Here question arises why the parties remained silent form 23.06.2005 to 10.03.2021 for non registration of the documents. Immediately after issuance of sale letter it was the duty of O.P. to register the document but failed to do so, it amounts to deficiency in service of the O.P.

On 04.08.2021 only the O.P. took steps for registration and the D.S.R., Sambalpur vide letter dated 01.09.2021 intimated that the land is “Anabadi” and registration is not permissible from this very fact it is clear that as the Kisam  of land was “Anabadi” and finance has been made to Gajanand Babaiwala in 1975-76, to recover the secured asset auction sale was made without converting the land to “industrial purpose” or “Karkhana” Kisam of “Ghara-bari’ Kisam the land was sold. Prior to the sale it was not done for which the D.S.R. Sambalpur refused to register the sale deed. To patch up the lacuna the O.P. preferred R.P. No. 498/2022 before the Addl. Commissioner consolidation and settlement, Sambalpur against O.G.L.S case No. 16/2010 of Tahsildar, Sambalpur. Relating to status of land dispute was existing for which the DSR, Sambalpur refused to register the sale deed. The O.P. preferred W.P.(C) No. 8229/2023 against the order in R.P. No. 498/2022 and then W.A. No. 819/2023 before hon’ble High Court, Orissa.

In the sale letter or in the advertised sale notice the O.P. is totally silent on status of the land and to recover the outstanding dues sold the land by delivery of the possession.

The O.P. suppressed the material facts, kept the intending purchasers about the status of land, not registered the document(Sale deed) in time and when all these facts came to lime light preferred cases before different courts to prove that the O.P. is right and its all actions are proper. Acts of the O.P. is not only unfair trade practice but also misrepresenting facts regarding sale of the asset. It proves the ill intention of the OP.

The issue is answered against the O.P.

Issue No.3 Whether pendency of W.A. No. 819/2023 before the Hon’ble  High Court, Orissa is a bar for this Commission to decide the issue of deficiency in service?

It is specifically pleaded by the O.P. that relating to status of the land a number of cases have been preferred by the O.P. like O.G.L.S case No. 16/2010 before Tahsildar, Sambalpur, Revision petition No. 498/2022 before Addl. Commissioner consolidation and settlement, Sambalpur then W.P. © No. 8229/2023 before Hon’ble single Bench, High  Court Orissa and lastly W.A. No. 819/2023 before hon’ble High Court, Cuttack and in I.A. No. 2093/2023 status quo order is in force.

Relating to status of the land this Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere but it is to be examined that whether any deficiency existes or not. To decide deficiency in service, the status of the land is not a bar not order of the Hon’ble High Court, Orissa.

Accordingly, the O.P. is deficient it its service by not disclosing the real facts and kept in darkness and years together remained silent. It amounts to deficiency in service.

The issue is answered in favour of the Complainant.

Issue No. 4 What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

From the Supra Discussion it is clear that the Complainant as the widow of rightful purchaser Binod Kumar entitled for relief sort for. The present market price of the land in question the Complainant has submitted a valuation report of Er. S.K. Panigrahi to be Rs. 1,05,00,000/-(One crore Five Lakhs) only. The O.P has not challenged the valuation by submitting any documents.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case it is ordered:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 1,05,00,000/-( One Crore Five Lakhs) only present market value of the property incase the sale deed is not executed within one month of this order. At that time the O.P. will be liable to pay 4% interest P.A. as compensation from the date of filing complaint and litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/-. For unfair trade practice as per Rule 10(2) of the C.P.(C.D.R.C.) Rules, 2020 the O.P. is to pay Rs. 20.00 lakhs to the District Consumer Welfare fund maintained by State government.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 12^th day of March 2024

Supply free copies to the parties.