Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/716/2020

Gulshan Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Estate Office, Union Territory - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Manoj Vashishtha

22 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/716/2020
Date of Institution	:	29/12/2020
Date of Decision	:	22/11/2024

 

Gulshan Kapoor S/o Late Sh. Mehar Chand, aged about 71 years, resident of House No. 2698, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant

V E R S U S

1.The Estate Office, Union Territory, Estate Office Bridge Market, 17D, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017 through its Estate Officer or Officer-in-Charge.

2.Jagga Singh S/o Raunki Ram, since deceased through his LRs

A.Raj Kumar

B.Hardip Kumar

C.Jony

All sons of Late Sh. Jagga Singh, residents of House No.2952, Dadumajra Colony, Chandigarh and presently residing at Village Banya Bassi Chand Peer Banur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab

3.Punjab National Bank, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Manoj Vashishtha, Counsel for complainant (through VC)
	Sh. Sachin, Govt. Pleader for OP-1
	OP-2 ex-parte
	Sh. Rohit Ummat, Counsel for OP-3

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that he had purchased the lease rights of commercial booth bearing No.84, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh from OP-2 on making payment of consideration with a view to use the same exclusively for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment.  In order to get the lease rights transferred in the name of complainant it was required by OP-1 vide memo dated 14.1.2023 to submit the amount of 1/3^rd Profit, Ground Rent and interest. Accordingly, the complainant on behalf of OP-2 deposited three demand drafts with OP-1 bearing No.898265 for ₹7,05,067/-, DD No.898266 for ₹88,361/- and DD No.898267 for ₹1,250/-, all dated 24.1.2013 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh/OP-3. Unfortunately, Sh.Jagga Singh/OP-2 expired on 4.2.2013 and the complainant filed Civil Suit No.CS-12321 dated 16.7.2013 before the Civil Judge, Chandigarh which was decreed by virtue of settlement deed dated 5.4.2016. Thereafter, complainant approached OP-1 to transfer the lease right in his favour as he had already completed the required formalities and vide letter dated 22.11.2017 (Ex.C-9) OP-1 informed that it had sent back two demand drafts of ₹7,05,067/- & ₹88,361/- to OP-2 vide letter dated 4.9.2015 whereas legal heirs of OP-2 did not get the said demand drafts. Thereafter, as per order dated 28.3.2019 of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandigarh, sale deed was got executed in favour of complainant on 22.4.2019 through the Reader of the Court. Though the complainant had deposited the required amount of unearned profits and rent way back in the year 2013 but despite registration of sale deed in favour of complainant, the booth in question still shows to be in the name of OP-2. Accordingly, complainant sent representation dated 14.9.2020 to OP-1 but, till date, it has neither furnished any clarification or undertaking about non-encashment of the aforesaid demand drafts nor transferred the booth in question in his favour.  Due to non-transfer of lease rights of ownership of the booth in question in his name, complainant is not able to run any business from the same for want of proof of lease rights of ownership. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking various reliefs.
2.        In its written version OP-1, inter alia, took preliminary objection that the present consumer complaint is not maintainable as it relates to transfer of ownership of booth in question. On merits, factual matrix of the case is not disputed.  It is submitted that the office of OP-1 vide memo dated 12.2.2013 had asked the owner of the booth in question i.e. Sh.Jagga Singh to furnish such documents to complete the formalities for issue of NOC. However, as Sh.Jagga Singh as well as complainant slept over and did not complete requisite formalities for grant of NOC, the demand drafts were returned to Sh.Jagga Singh, resident of H.No.2952, Dadu Majra Colony, U.T., Chandigarh vide letter dated 4.9.2015 through Registered Post. It is averred that due to non completion of formalities by Sh.Jagga Singh and the complainant, the demand drafts were not got encashed and were returned to the allottee Sh.Jagga Singh.  The complainant vide application dated 23.12.2019 had admitted that the demand drafts so returned by OP-1 had been lost in transit due to death of Sh.Jagga Singh and shifting of place of residence.  It is alleged that it was the duty of Sh.Jagga Singh or the complainant to resubmit the demand drafts after due revalidation. The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        Despite due service, OP-2 did not put in appearance before this Commission and accordingly they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.10.2022
4.        In its separate written version, OP-3/Bank admitted the issuance of the demand drafts in question in favour of Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh and averred that the same were to be encashed by the beneficiary within stipulated period as prescribed under law.  It is stated that OP-3 is unable to re-issue demand draft in the absence of No Objection Certificate by OP-1. The remaining allegations have been denied for want of knowledge. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
5.        In separate replications, complainant controverted the stand of the contesting OPs and reiterated his own.
6.        Contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
7.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
8.        It is observed from the record that the grievance of the complainant is primarily two-fold i.e. firstly with regard to re-issuance/re-validation of the stale drafts by OP-3/bank and secondly for recording his name as owner of lease rights against the booth in question in its record by the Estate Office/OP-1.
9.        So far as the first grievance is concerned, admittedly OP-1 had returned the two drafts of ₹88,381/- and ₹7,05,067/- to the owner (Sh. Jagga Singh) of the booth in question vide its letter dated 4.9.2015 as is also evident from the letter dated 22.11.2018 (Ex.C-9) written by OP-1 to the complainant. Not only this, in response to letter dated 23.12.2019 of the complainant, OP-1 had again informed him vide its letter dated 2.3.2020 (Annexure OP-1/12), copy of which was also sent to the OP-3/Bank that the drafts in question were already sent to the owner Sh. Jagga Singh vide letter dated 4.9.2015.  Otherwise also, OP-3/bank has failed to prove on record that the said drafts were ever encashed by OP-1. In such circumstances it was incumbent upon OP-3/bank to have acted diligently and re-issued the drafts but it failed to do so and unnecessarily kept on asking for the NOC and the said act certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. 
10.        Now coming to the second grievance of the complainant i.e. with regard to recording his name as owner of lease rights against the booth in question, admittedly the booth in question stands transferred in the name of the complainant vide sale deed dated 22.4.2019 (Ex.C-12) meaning thereby complainant has acquired the lease rights of ownership. Hence, OP-1 is obligated to record his name as owner in the record, of course upon payment of requisite charges by the complainant for which the drafts were submitted way back in the year 2013.  However, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case and especially when no fault is attributable to the complainant and rather he had diligently completed all the formalities to get the booth in question transferred in his name, substantial justice requires that the complainant should not be burdened with any penalty/interest etc. by OP-1 for recording his name as owner against the booth in question.
11.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-
    1. OP-3/bank to immediately re-issue/re-validate the drafts in question and hand them over to the complainant for onward submission by him with OP-1.
    2. Upon receipt of re-issued/re-validated drafts from the complainant, OP-1 shall record his name as owner of lease rights of the booth in question in its record.  However, OP-1 shall not levy any penalty/interest etc. on the complainant for the said purpose, as detailed above.
    3. OP-3/bank to pay lump sum amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused to him as well as litigation expenses.
12.        This order be complied with by the respective OPs within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
13.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
14.        However, since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against OP-2, the consumer complaint against them is dismissed with no order as to costs.
15.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED 22/11/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA] MEMBER