DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 230 of 25-05-2011

Decided on : 30-09-2011

Sima Rani aged about 48 years W/o Ramesh Kumar Gilhotra. R/o H. No. 94, Street No. 4, Alwar (Rajasthan).

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Cooperative Society, Sector 17 Chandigarh through its Registrar.

2. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd., SCO No. 150-151-152 Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director

3. The Bathinda Housing Complex, Co-op. Housing Building Society Ltd., Dabwali Road, Bathinda, through its Chairman

4. Doctor Sham Lal Thukral, R/o A-5 Civil Line, Bathinda.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.S. Walia, counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.

Sh. Kamaljit Bansal, counsel for opposite party No. 4.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that plot No. 96 of 500 Sq Yards situated in House Fed Colony Dabwali Road, Bathinda is allotted to Dr. Sham Lal Thukral, opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 4 executed an agreement for plot No. 96 with Sh. Narinder Kumar Verma on 31-12-2008 by which he was fully competent to transfer the plot to any other person. Sh. Narinder Kumar Verma gave an affidavit on 02-08-2010 in favour of the complainant for transfer of ownership of plot and further authorized her to get the plot transferred in her name. In this way, the complainant after getting the affidavit from opposite party No. 4 applied for the transfer of the said plot in her name and paid Rs. 100/- on 29-10-2010 vide receipt No. 2717 and Rs. 20,000/- vide receipt No. 2718 of 29-10-2010 as transfer fee and Rs. 500/- vide receipt No. 2719 to opposite party no. 3. The opposite party No. 4 also deposited Rs. 5000/- being maintenance charges vide receipt No. 2720 of 29-10-2010. The complaint received registered letter No. Hfed/Tw/5121 of 13-05-2011 vide which the opposite parties transferred the plot No. 96 conditional. Further, the opposite parties have also bound the complainant in view of the court case. The complainant alleged that no condition could be imposed on the complainant as no case is pending in any court against the complainant as well as opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. The complainant purchased the said plot by paying huge amount and also paid a hefty amount to the opposite parties for transfer of ownership of plot. The opposite parties were failed to transfer the plot in the name of the complainant even after getting the amount for that very purpose. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties to transfer the plot No. 96 in her name and pay compensation for mental sufferings, but to no effect, hence, she has filed the present complaint.

2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed their joint written reply and pleaded that plot No. 96 was allotted to Smt. Saroj Bala W/o Surinder Singh Lubana who further transferred the same to Dr. Sham Lal Thukral (opposite party No. 4) and the transfer was effected by opposite party No. 2 vide transfer letter No. HFED/PW/144 dated 4-7-2005. The complainant Seema Rani purchased the plot No. 96 from opposite party No. 4 and he prior to the sale of the plot to the complainant had already executed an agreement to sell the same, with one Surjit Singh S/o Munshi Ram. The said Surjit Singh, on the basis of that agreement, filed civil suit in the court of learned Civil Juge (Sr. Division) Bathinda, titled as Surjit Singh Vs. Sham Lal for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-05-2008 and the suit is still pending and the learned Civil Judge has granted the injunction in favour of Surjit Singh, but the same was vacated by Learned Civil Judge (SD) vide order dated 25-5-2010. The final disposal of civil suit is pending and Surjit Singh sent intimation in this regard to opposite party No. 2. The conditions imposed in the letter dated 13-5-2011 are general in nature and further more in consonance with the principles of 'lis-pendens'. Dr. Sham Lal Thukral, opposite party No. 4 gave an affidavit to the effect that he will accept the decision of court. The complainant paid the required transfer fee to the opposite party No. 2. In fact the delay if any occurred in the transfer of plot in favour of the complainant has been due to the Civil Litigation pending in the Civil Court at Bathinda because of the execution of the agreement to sell by opposite party No. 4 Dr. Sham Lal Thukral with Surjit Singh and during the pendency of the Civil Suit execution of another agreement to sell by Dr. Sham Lal Thukral in favour of the complainant.

3. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate written reply and pleaded that Civil Suit is pending between Dr. Sham Lal Thukral owner of the plot in question and Surjit Singh S/o Munish with regard to the said plot which later on the complainant has purchased from Dr. Sham Lal Thukral, opposite party No. 4 during the pendency of the civil suit in the court. Hence, the delay if any occurred in the transfer of the plot in favour of the complainant has been due to the civil litigation pending in the Civil Court at Bathinda because of the execution of the agreement to sell by opposite party No. 4 with Surjit Singh and during the pendency of the civil suit execution of another agreement to sell by opposite party No. 4 in favour of the complainant.

4. The opposite party No. 4 in his separate written reply pleaded that complainant Seema Rani purchased the said plot from its owner Dr. Sham Lal Thukral being the nominee of Narinder Kumar Verma of Faridkot and opposite party No. 4 gave an affidavit in this regard to the complainant on 2-8-2010. The complainant after getting the affidavit from opposite party No. 4, applied for the transfer of plot No. 96 in her name and paid Rs. 20,010/- through draft and completed all the formalities. A receipt in this regard was issued to the complainant/opposite party No. 4 by the daily wage clerk S. Gurjeet Singh. The complainant/opposite party No. 4 were ready to pay remaining fee but it was not accepted by said employee. As this deal was without any brokerage to Sh. Gurjit Singh Clerk, he delayed the despatch of papers for transfers. After delay of 88 days, complainant as well as opposite party No. 4 were telephonically informed to visit in the office of the opposite parties to deposit the remaining fee which was deposited by them. The civil suit against the opposite party No. 4 is result of Shri Gurjit Singh one Daily Wage Clerk, working with society who prepared a false and fabricated document of fake attendance letter (addressed to administrator) of Sh. Surjeet Singh for dated 25-8-2008. When opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 were not parties in the said court case/civil suit, the opposite party No. 2 could not impose any condition in the last para that seller/purchaser will accept court decision.

5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

7. These are undisputed facts between the parties that Sima Rani purchased the plot in question from opposite party No. 4 Dr. Sham Lal Thukral. She deposited the transfer fee with opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and the plot has been transferred in her name but in the last line of transfer letter bearing No. Hfed/TW/5121 dated 13-05-2011 Ex. C-7, it has been mentioned : “Seller and Purchaser will be bound to abide by the decision of court case”.

8. The allegation of the complainant is that she purchased plot No. 96 of 500 Sq. Yds situated in House Fed Colony, Dabwali Road, Bathinda from Dr. Sham Lal Thukral. She applied for the transfer of said plot with the opposite parties and deposited the necessary fee with opposite party No. 3. She alleged that she has received letter No. Hfed/Tw/5121 dated 13-05-2011 through registered post regarding intimation of transfer of ownership of plot in question vide which they have transferred the plot conditional and they bound the complainant about the decision of the court case.

   On the other hand, the plea of the opposite parties is that Civil Suit is pending between Dr. Sham Lal Thukral owner of the plot in question and Surjit Singh S/o Munshi Singh with regard to the said plot which later on the complainant has purchased from Dr. Sham Lal Thukral, opposite party No. 4 during the pendency of the civil suit in the court. The delay if any occurred in the transfer of the plot in favour of the complainant has been due to the civil litigation pending in the Civil Court because of the execution of the agreement to sell by opposite party No. 4 with Surjit Singh and during the pendency of the civil suit execution of another agreement to sell the plot by opposite party No. 4 in favour of the complainant.

9. Ex. R-1 is the civil suit filed by Surjeet Singh, titled :

   “Surjeet Singh son of Munshi Singh aged about 55 years, resident of A-1,Focal Point, Bathinda. Versus

Dr. Sham Lal Thukral son of Sh. Topan Dass, R/o A-5/2, Civil Lines, Bathinda.

Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-05-2008 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for the sale of plot No. 96 measuring 500 Sq. Yds. situated at Housefed Colony, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, for sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/- per Sq. Yd. out of which Rs. 10,00,000/- has been received by the defendant from the plaintiff on 10-05-2008 as earnest money before the marginal witnesses of the said agreement dated 10-5-2008 vide cheque No. 014605 dated 10-5-2008 and the transfer of the plot was to be made on or before 24-8-2008 with Housefed, Bathinda and for possession of the aforesaid plot No. 69.

OR

In the alternative for realization of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lacs) i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- being the amount of earnest money received by the defendant from the plaintiff in lieu of agreement to sell dated 10-5-2008 and Rs. 10,00,000/- being the amount of pre-estimated consolidated damages payable by the defendant to the plaintiff alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of execution of the said agreement i.e. 10-5-2008 till realization ;

AND

Suit for permanent injunction retraining the defendant from alienating any part of plot No. 96 measuring 500 Sq. Yards situated at Housefed Colony, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, fully described above, in any manner i.e. by way of sale, gift, lease, mortgage, transfer etc., in favour of any person other than the plaintiff, the same being illegal and detrimental to the rights and interests of the plaintiff.”

10. Ex. R-7 is the affidavit dated 15-01-2011 of Dr. Sham Lal Thukral, opposite party No. 4 which is reproduced hereunder :-

    “I, Dr. Sham Lal Thukral S/o Sh. Topar Das Thukral, R/o A-5, Civil Lines, Bathinda, hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

    1. That I sold Plot No. 96, House Fed Colony, Bathinda to Smt. Sima Rani, Gilhotra, 94, Scheme No. 4. Alwar (Rajasthan) and submitted/sent documents for transfer of Plot in favour of Smt. Sima Rani from House Fed Punjab, Chandigarh.

    2. That Court case is pending in the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge, Sen. Divn. Bathinda.

    3. That I have already submitted an application to the Hon'ble Court informing about transfer of the Plot in the name of Smt. Sima Rani.

    4. That I will accept decision of Civil Litigation subject to appeals/RSA/SLP etc. as regards to Plot No. 96, House Fed Colony, Bathinda.

    5. That now there is no stay from any Hon'ble Court as regards to Plot No. 96, House Fed Colony, Bathinda.”

    Dr. Sham Lal Thukral, opposite party No. 4 have sent the aforesaid affidavit to opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 alongwith letter dated 15-01-2011 vide which he has asked the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 that by taking action according to his affidavit, the plot in question be transferred in the name of Sima Rani.

11. The plot in question has already been transferred in the name of Sima Rani, complainant vide letter dated 13-05-2011 Ex. C-7. However, the transfer is conditional and the said action has been taken by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 keeping in view the aforesaid civil suit pending in the Civil Court and aforesaid affidavit of owner of the plot in question i.e. opposite party No. 4. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover, as mentioned above, the subject matter is sub-judice in the Civil Court and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

12. In the result, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

30-09-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

( Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member