13-04-2015 -        Learned Counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned order on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants and secondly the appellants had already taken steps for correction of the defects appearing in the registered sale deed. The letters written to the concerned authorities, and their reply for correction of the said sale deed, were referred. It is submitted that there has been no deficiency on the part of the appellants.

2.  From the impugned order, it appears that the opposite parties- appellants filed their written version, evidence on oath, written note of argument, and a supplementary affidavit. Thereafter, they remained absent continuously from 30.7.2014 and as such the case was posted for passing final order after hearing the argument of the complainant. Therefore, the appellants cannot complain that they were not given opportunity of hearing. Further it appears that the written version, evidence on oath, written note of argument and the supplementary affidavit filed by them was considered by learned District Forum.

3.  So far as the rectification of the registered sale deed is concerned, it appears that steps were taken by the appellant by writing letters to the concerned authorities, on which directions were also issued by them to rectify the sale deed in question, but there is nothing to show that rectification has been made .In the supplementary affidavit filed on 21.6.2014, the appellants stated that the original registered sale deed No. 18937 dated 18.11.2008 was lying with the complainant but no evidence was produced in support of this contention and therefore the learned District Forum rightly held that the original registered sale deed was neither handed over to the Bank nor to the complainant and the defects therein were not corrected by the appellants, which amounted to deficiency in service on their part.

4.  The learned District Forum also found that the electric meter of the flat in question was not transferred by the appellants in the name of the complainant.

5.  Accordingly, the appellants were directed to get the said sale deed corrected and handed over to the complainant or to the Bank or to execute another sale deed and get it registered in favour of the complainant at their own cost. The appellants were further directed to ensure that the electric meter of the flat of the complainant is transferred in his name, failing which the complainant was entitled to get the refund of the admissible charges paid in this regard along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment of such charges. The learned District Forum granted Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 3000/- as litigation cost. The said directions were to be complied within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, failing which the complainant was at liberty to take necessary steps for compliance of the said directions in accordance with law.

6.  After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and going through the brief carefully, we find that no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                             Ranchi,

                             Dated:-13/04/2015