DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.637 of 2011
Sri Narendra Mohan Saxena,
S/o Late Sri Gauri Sahai Saxena,
R/o 3/290 Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
1. The Secretary to Govt. of UP,
Ministry of Uraban Development,
Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.
2. The Chairman/Commissioner,
Lucknow Division,
Lucknow Development Authority,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
3. The Vice Chairman,
Lucknow Development Authority,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of interest on Rs.23,350.00 and on Rs.1,71,250.00, Rs.10,632.00 with interest and compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he is the purchaser of H.No.H2/1, Balda Colony, Nishatganj, Lucknow and the OP No.3 is the seller of the above house. The sale deed of the said house was executed by Sri Anoop Shukla as Prabhari Adhikari Sampati, LDA on 15.07.2009. The above house was allotted to the Complainant on a monthly rent of Rs.50.00 per month for residential purpose, sometimes during 1965 by Lucknow Development Trust. Later on after
-2-
formation of the LDA this property was taken over by them and the Complainant became the tenant of LDA. The LDA realised the rents from the tenants regularly and the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. During the year 1988 the LDA OP No.3 decided to sell the property to its tenants (occupants). In terms of the scheme of the sale of the houses, the OP No.3 vide letter dated 25.02.1988 offered the Complainant to purchase the above house and the approximated price of the said house was determined at Rs.93,400.00. By this letter from OP No.3 the Complainant was asked to pay 25% amount of the entire sale price within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter. The balance amount of Rs.70,000.00 was to be paid in two years either as full payment or in instalment. The Complainant paid Rs.23,350.00 on 25.02.1988 through DD on which the OP No.3 issued the encashment receipt of the DD on 17.08.1988 and it was also admitted in the letter dated 31.05.1997. Due to certain legal impediments, the OP No.3 stopped the sale of these houses but did not return the advance money to the Complainant. The OP No.3 vide letter dated 29.01.1988 asked the Complainant to deposit Rs.1,71,241.00 in addition to the amount of Rs.23,350.00 within one month. The Complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.1,71,250.00 vide receipt dated 30.03.1998. After making the full payment of the sale consideration of the said house the Complainant ran from pillar to post to get the sale deed executed in his favour but it was told that the main file is not traceable and lower staff was not interested in getting the matter solved. The Complainant read in the newspapers that the new Vice Chairman OP No.3 is organising the Mitra Divas during February 2009 for sorting out the problems of persons and to dispose of the pending matters. The Complainant filed a complaint on 03.02.2009 before OP No.3 and the lower authorities were directed to get the sale deed executed in his favour but all in vain. The office
-3-
of OP No.3 issued a letter dated 18.03.2009 to the Complainant to provide stamp papers of Rs.2,000.00 for execution of sale deed and stamp papers of Rs.4,200.00 for execution of sale deed. The required stamp papers were submitted in the office of OP No.3 on 19.03.2009 but the matter was kept pending upto July 2009. The OP No.3 issued a letter dated 18.03.2009 that there is an excess deposit of Rs.10,632.00 by the Complainant after adjustment of all the dues but this amount was also not refunded to the Complainant till date. The OP No.3 executed the final sale deed on 15.07.2009. The OP No.3 kept the money of the Complainant of Rs.23,350.00 for more than 23 years and Rs.1,71,250.00 for more than 11 years. The Complainant had to pay Rs.1,01,250.00 as interest on the principal amount of Rs.70,000.00 from March 1988 onwards. The OP No.3 and its staff have been deficient in not executing the sale deed in favour of the Complainant within a reasonable time after the deposit of full consideration of the house. After the execution of sale deed, the Complainant contacted LDA to refund the balance excess deposit of Rs.10,632.00 as admitted by them in their letter dated 18.03.2009 but all in vain. Thereafter the Complainant sent a legal notice on 29.06.2011 but till dated no reply was given by any of the OPs, hence this complaint.
The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that a letter dated 25.02.1988 was sent to the Complainant wherein the cost of the house was shown as Rs.93,400.00 and Rs.23,350.00 was to be deposited as advance money within a month and the balance amount of Rs.70,050.00 was to be deposited within 2 years and the rent of the house was to be deposited till March 1988 and that the land of the house was to be given on lease under the fixed lease rent. There is no evidence to show that the Complainant had demanded for refund of Rs.23,350.00. A letter dated 15.10.1997 was issued to the Complainant for depositing
-4-
Rs.1,71,241.00 by 26.10.1997 but the amount was not deposited by the Complainant within time, hence he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.1,71,241.00 with penal interest by 28.02.1998 but the Complainant did not deposit the interest for the delay in depositing the amount. The Complainant made efforts for the completion of all the formalities in February, 2009 and hence the sale deed was executed on 15.07.2009 after completion of all the formalities. When the costing of the house was done, then it was found that Rs.16,439.00 was excess deposit made by the Complainant and hence after deducting Rs.6,000.00 the balance rent and Rs.5,807.00 the amount of lease rent and other expenses totalling Rs.11,807.00 were deducted from the aforesaid amount and a cheque for the balance amount of Rs.4,632.00 was prepared and sent at the Complainant’s address on 30.12.2011. Since the Complainant did not contact the department for execution of the sale deed from 1998 to 2009, hence there was no deficiency on the part of the OPs in this regard. The cheque which was sent to the Complainant was received back with the endorsement “fcuk crk;s ?kj NksM+ x;s gSaA” and the same is available with the department which may be taken by the Complainant. This complaint is barred by time as the sale deed was executed on 15.07.2009 whereas this complaint has been filed in November, 2011. Since the sale deed has been executed in the favour of the Complainant on 15.07.2009 and on 28.12.2011 the cheque has also been sent to the Complainant, hence there is no proceeding left in the matter, hence the Complainant does not remain a consumer in this case, therefore this case deserves to be dismissed with costs.
The Complainant has filed replication.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit and 6 papers with the complaint. The OPs have filed the affidavit of Sri Anoop Shukla, Sampati Adhikari, LDA with 7 annexures.
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
-5-
Now, it is to be seen as to whether this case is barred by time or not. It is also to be seen as to whether the Complainant is a consumer or not. It is also to be seen as to whether the Complainant had deposited excess amount with regard to the purchase of the house and whether the OPs have committed deficiency in service in not refunding the amount and also not executing the sale deed in the right earnest and therefore they have committed deficiency in service or not.
First of all, we take up the point as to whether this case is time barred or not. In this regard, the argument advanced from the side of the OPs is that the sale deed was executed on 15.07.2009 whereas this case has been filed on 14.07.2011, after lapse of 2 years, therefore this case is barred by time. There does not appear to be any merit in the arguments of the OPs as they themselves admit that a cheque for Rs.4,232.00 was refunded by them through letter dated 30.12.2011 which clearly shows that the cause of action was subsisting when this complaint was filed as the excess amount was not refunded to the Complainant. Therefore, this case is not barred by time at all and it is accordingly decided.
Now, we take up the point as to whether the Complainant is a consumer or not. It is argued by the Counsel for the OPs that the sale deed has already been executed and even the cheque for Rs.4,632.00 was also sent by the OPs, therefore the Complainant does not remain a consumer. This argument does not hold any water as the OPs themselves admit that the cheque was sent on 28.12.2011, a date which is subsequent to the date of filing of the case in this Forum on 14.07.2011. Obviously, as discussed above, the cause of action was subsisting and therefore it cannot be said that the Complainant does not remain a consumer and it is accordingly decided.
Now, we come to the main issue as to whether the OPs did not refund the excess amount deposited by the Complainant and that they also did not execute the sale deed in
-6-
the right earnest after the Complainant had deposited the entire cost of the house on 30.03.1998. In this regard, we firstly examine the stand taken by the OPs. The OPs themselves admit that Rs.16,439.00 was in excess deposited by the Complainant but out of that Rs.6,000.00 was remaining as balance amount of the rent and Rs.5,807.00 was to be paid as lease rent etc. and thereafter after deducting Rs.6,000.00 + Rs.5,807.00 i.e. Rs.11,807.00 from the aforesaid amount of Rs.16,439.00, the amount of Rs.4,632.00 was sent to the Complainant through cheque. However, even this cheque was received back as the Complainant had left the house without any information but this stand of the OPs does not appear to be correct one as from the letter dated 18.03.2009 a copy of which has been filed by the Complainant, it is clear that after deduction of the lease rent etc. of Rs.5,807.00 a sum of Rs.10,632.00 was found in excess. Now if the rent was due then the sum of Rs.10,632.00 could not have been shown as the amount in excess as the balance rent would have definitely been also deducted but by showing the amount of Rs.10,632.00 as the balance amount, it is clear that there was no amount remaining as balance on account of rent etc., hence showing Rs.6,000.00 as balance of the rent amount due, does not appear to be correct. From the aforesaid document it is clear that Rs.10,632.00 was in excess and that should have been refunded back by the OPs and as they did not do so, therefore they have committed deficiency in service in that regard.
With regard to depositing of Rs.1,71,241.00 as demanded by the OPs vide letter dated 15.10.1997, it transpires that the Complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.1,71,241.00 on 30.03.1998. This amount as per OPs was to be deposited by 28.02.1998 whereas it was deposited on 30.03.1998. But after depositing the entire cost of the house the OPs did not executes the sale deed for more than 11 years.
-7-
The explanation given by the OPs in this regard is that the Complainant did not contact them nor did he fulfil the formalities for execution of the sale deed but on the contrary the stand of the Complainant is that he kept pestering the OPs for executing the sale deed but to no avail and hence he had to meet the OP No.3 in “Mitra Divas” as publicised in the newspapers for sorting out the problems of the persons in February, 2009 and it is when he made a complaint in that meeting, then his matter was considered and action was taken for execution of the same deed. This clearly shows that the Complainant kept making efforts and it is only after the intervention of the OP No.3 that after about more than 11 years the sale deed could be executed, therefore there does not appear to be any substance in the argument advanced by the side of the OPs that the Complainant did not make efforts for completion of the formalities for execution of the sale deed. On the contrary, the Complainant kept making efforts for execution of the sale deed for years together and it is only after 11 years of the deposit of the entire cost of the house that the sale deed was executed by the OPs. Therefore, the OPs are certainly deficient in service in that regard. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to get interest on the amount of Rs.1,71,241.00 from the date of deposit i.e. 30.03.1998 till the execution of the sale deed i.e. 15.07.2009. On the basis of the discussions made above it is also clear that the Complainant is entitled to refund of amount of Rs.10,632.00 also with interest. The Complainant is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.10,632.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two Only) with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay 9% interest on the amount of Rs.1,71,241.00 from the
-8-
date of deposit i.e. 30.03.1998 till the execution of the sale deed i.e. 15.07.2009 to the Complainant.
The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 1 September, 2015
