STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.      Working Woman Rural Welfare Society (Regd.), Plot No.26-A, Block C, Village Kansal, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, through its President (wrongly mentioned in complaint) as old address 123A, Block A, Near Shivshakti Mandir, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh.

2.      Working Woman Rural Welfare Society (Regd.), Plot No.26-A, Block C, Village Kansal, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, through its Secretary (wrongly mentioned in complaint) as old address 123A, Block A, Near Shivshakti Mandir, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh.

3.      Working Woman Rural Welfare Society (Regd.), through its Secretary, R/o H.No.221-A, WWRWS Block-A, (Forest View Enclave), Kansal Punjab.

4.      Working Woman Rural Welfare Society (Regd.), through its General Secretary, Smt. Nanki Hans, Editor, The Tribune, Sector 29, Chandigarh.

……Appellants

V e r s u s

Pushpa Shukla, aged 64 years, w/o Banwari Lal Shukla, r/o H.No.75, W.W.R.W. Society, Block-A, Kansal, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

              SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

              Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.           This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I,  U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it partly accepted the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the complainant to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- with the OPs and thereafter the OPs shall get executed and registered the sale deed in respect of the plot in question forthwith in favour of the complainant. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case”.

2.                   The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, became a member of the Society, floated by the Opposite Parties (now appellants),  and purchased two plots, measuring 5 marlas and 10 marlas,  from them. The Opposite Parties, received the amount of Rs.50,000/- each, vide receipt nos.005604 and 005605, both dated 05.10.1996, towards the first installment of the said plots. The complainant paid another amount of Rs.50,000/-, vide receipt number 10014 dated 9.12.1996. Another amount of Rs.60,000/-,  was received by the Opposite Parties, vide demand draft dated 19.03.1997,  towards the price of the plots. The total cost of 10 marlas plot was Rs.1,80,000/- and the cost of 5 marlas plot was Rs.80,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant got share certificate and allotment letter dated 02.09.1998, from the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the complainant, started construction, as per the advice of the Opposite Parties. After completing the construction of house, on ten marlas of plot, aforesaid,  the complainant told the Opposite Parties that though the construction had been raised, yet the map had not been approved. She also informed the Opposite Parties, that the sale deed of the plot, had also not been executed, in her favour. It was further stated that, in the year 2005, an advertisement was issued, in the Tribune, for submitting  the applications,  to get the construction regularized, in the periphery of Punjab, whereupon,  the complainant, immediately approached the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) (now GMADA) and submitted her application for regularization of construction. It was further stated that  the complainant, time and again, approached the Opposite Parties, for execution of the sale deed and getting the same registered, in her favour, in respect of the plot, in question, but all in vain. It was further stated that non-execution of the sale deed, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the plot, in question, amounted to deficiency in service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             The Opposite Parties, in their joint written statement, pleaded that the complaint was  barred by limitation. It was further pleaded that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was stated that the complainant, had deposited Rs.50,000/-,  towards membership of the Society for 10 marlas of plot, vide receipt no.005604, dated 05.10.1996. It was admitted that another amount of Rs.50,000/-,  was deposited by the complainant, for plot measuring 5 marlas, vide receipt no.5605 dated 05.10.1996. It was further stated that the total price of the plot of 10 marlas, was Rs.1,80,000/-, against which the complainant had paid Rs.1,60,000/-, and Rs.20,000/-,  were still outstanding against her. It was further stated that besides this, the complainant had also not paid the development charges, to the tune of Rs.15,000/-(one time); water charges, to the tune of Rs.200/- per month w.e.f. September 2006; and maintenance charges, to the tune of Rs.12,000/-(Rs.2000/- per year w.e.f. 2006), qua which, show cause notice dated 05.08.2011, was issued to her. It was further stated that since the complainant, had not paid Rs.20,000/- , towards the remaining balance price of 10 marlas of plot, and other charges, referred to above, the question of execution of the  sale deed, in her favour, did not at all arise. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties,  led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and, have gone through the written arguments submitted by the appellants, evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submitted that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, as the plot, in question, is  situated  in the area of Village Kansal, District S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, and the Registered office of appellant no.1 Society had also been shifted to Kansal, and, as such, no cause of action, arose to the complainant,  within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In the written arguments, submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, it was admitted that the allotment letter of the plot was issued at Chandigarh. It was also admitted that the initial payment towards booking price of the plot, was also made at Chandigarh. On the receipts,  Annexure C-1 dated 05.10.1996,  Annexure C-2 dated 05.10.1996 and Annexure C-3 dated 09.12.1996, evidencing the payment of Rs.50,000/- each, the address of the working office of the Working Woman Rural Welfare Society (Regd.), was mentioned as , 123-A, Block A, Near Shivshakti Mandir, Sector 30-B,  Chandigarh. Since the allotment letter of the plot, was issued at Chandigarh and payment of part amount of the price of the plot was made at Chandigarh, cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh. The mere fact that later on the Regd. Office of the Society was shifted to Kansal did not mean that no cause of action arose to the complainant at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh. Accordingly, the District Forum, according to Section 11(c) of the Act, had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in the regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

9.             It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the complaint was barred by limitation. He further submitted that last payment was made to the appellants/Opposite Parties, by the complainant, vide receipt dated 19.03.1997. He further submitted that cause of action accrued to the complainant, to file the complaint within 2 years from 19.03.1997. He further submitted that, therefore, the complaint filed on 08.06.2011, was palpably barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. After receipt of Rs.1,60,000/-, as part payment of the sale consideration of the plot of 10 marlas, which was allotted to the complainant, it was the duty of the Opposite Parties, to execute the sale deed, in her favour, as she had already constructed the house thereon, after taking possession thereof. The Opposite Parties, failed to execute the sale deed, in favour of the complainant. Under these circumstances, the cause of action, in this case, as rightly held by the District Forum, was continuing one. Not only this, the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, is yet to be executed, and got registered  in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the cause of action will  survive, until the execution and registration of the sale deed. Under these circumstances, the complaint could not be said to have been barred by time. The District Forum, was also right, in holding so. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected,

10.           There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that major sale consideration, to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-, was paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties/appellants, in respect of the plot, measuring 10 marlas. The remaining amount, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, could be paid, by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, as soon as, the sale deed was executed and got registered, in her favour. However, the Opposite Parties, did not execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant. Ultimately, they refused to do so. The act of the Opposite Parties, in not executing and getting registered the sale deed, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the plot, in question, amounted to gross deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

11.           The Counsel for the appellants, no doubt, submitted that since the complainant did not deposit the development charges to the tune of Rs.15,000/-(one time); water charges to the tune of Rs.200/- per month w.e.f. September 2006; and maintenance charges to the tune of Rs.12,000/-(Rs.2000/- per year w.e.f. 2006), the sale deed could not be executed, in her favour. He further submitted that even show cause notice dated 05.08.2011, was issued to the complainant, for the payment of these amounts. It may be stated here, that the show cause notice, was issued, during the pendency of the complaint. No tangible evidence/document, was produced by the appellants/Opposite Parties, to prove that the complainant, agreed to pay these charges. There was no agreement, executed between the parties,, showing that the complainant was liable to pay these amounts. In the absence of any agreement, executed, between the parties, regarding the payment of the amounts, mentioned in this paragraph, no liability could be fastened , upon her (complainant),  for the payment thereof. Under these circumstances, show cause notice dated 05.08.2011, issued by the Society, without being supported by any tangible evidence, could be said to be illegal and invalid. Otherwise also, even if, any amount, on account of these charges, was due, to the Society, against the complainant, that did not mean, that it could refuse to execute and get registered the sale deed, in her favour. At the most, the amount, if any, due to the Opposite Parties, against the complainant, could be recovered, by resorting to the remedy, available to them, under the provisions of law.  The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

12.           No other point, was urged, by the  Counsel  for the parties

13.           The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

February 10, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg