Date of Filing: 28/09/2011
Date of Order: 23/11/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1809 OF 2011
1. Mrs. Bandana Sircar,
W/o. late Mr.Kalyan Sircar,
Aged About 69 years.
2. Mrs. Lata Sircar,
W/o. Mr.Rohitesh Singh,
Aged About 38 years,
Rep. by her GPA holder by first complainant,
Both are R/at: No.S/2,
Gold Woods Apartments, 135/2,
Nagavarapalya, Bangalore-560 093.
(Rep. by Sri.Partha Mandal, Advocate) …. Complainant.
V/s
1. V.G.P. Housing Private Limited,
V.G.P. Square, Saidapet, No.6,
Dharmaraja Koil Street, Chennai-600 015.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Mr.N.Ramesh, Authorized Signatory,
V.G.P. Housing Private Limited,
V.G.P. Square, Saidapet, No.6,
Dharmaraja Koil Street, Chennai-600 015.
3. Mr. Mohan Das, Sales Manager,
V.G.P. Housing Private Limited,
Victoria Plaza, 87/16, 30th Cross,
7th Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 011.
(Rep. by Sri.N.Ganesh Rao, Advocate) …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- plus direction to the opposite parties to handover the original sale deed, are necessary:-
On 01.05.1999 Smt. Akkamma and other inclusive of the opposite party No.1 had executed and registered a sale deed and opposite party assured that sale deed will be delivered to the complainant later. The complainant approached the opposite party several times made correspondences with the opposite parties several times and also issued notice to the opposite parties even then the documents have not been delivered to the complainant. Hence for the deficiency in service the complainant has made this complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-
The complaint is barred by time and bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. The opposite party has misplaced the documents of title it is searching, when it traced it will be given.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the complainant has filed the memo stating that their complaint and documents be read as their evidence. The opposite party has filed their affidavit. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the opposite party along with other has executed a sale deed in favour of the complainants on 26.04.1999 and it was registered in the office of the sub-registrar. It is also an admitted fact that the opposite party had agreed to deliver the original sale deed to the complainant later. It is also an admitted fact that till date the opposite party had delivered only the certified copy of the sale deed and has not delivered the original sale deed to the complainant. Further it is admitted from 15.12.1999 till date the opposite party is informing the complainant that the certified copy of the sale deed is sent, original is being traced, it is misplaced and after tracing it will be delivered to the complainant. That means the opposite party has misplaced the sale deed. But it has not denied or declined to grant the original sale deed to the complainant. But in fact sale deed is not delivered. Hence the contention that it is barred by time is an untenable one. If the opposite party had denied or declined to deliver the original sale deed at any point of time also then the complainant would have filed the complaint within 2 years there from. Even after issue of notice by the counsel for the complainant the opposite party has not denied or declined to deliver the sale deed. That means the opposite party is committing unfair trade practice. It is not barred by time.
7. The other contention is that the compliant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Who are the other parties? Who should have been arrayed as parties? Is not at all stated. In any event when the opposite party who as one of the executors of the sale deed have kept the sale deed with them and agreed to deliver the sale deed to the complainant the other vendors need not be a party to the proceedings.
8. Further as the opposite party has taken 12 long years to search a sale deed and deliver it. It means they are not making any attempt to search or deliver the sale deed to the complainant. Hence under these circumstances if we direct the opposite party to search and deliver the original sale deed within a particular period and if it is not delivered then order payment of certain compensation and to comply with certain directions in this regard we think that will meet the ends of justice.
9. Since the action of the opposite parties is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite parties are directed to handover the registered sale deed dated: 26.04.1999 registered on 12.05.1999 as document No.615/99-2000 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, with respect to residential site No.B-6, Katha No.7/40 in the records of Chandapura Village Panchayath formed in the layout called “VGP-Gold City”, Andapura Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. If for any reason opposite parties fails to deliver the said sale deed within the prescribed period mentioned above then the opposite parties shall
(i) publish in any National Newspaper that the original sale deed is lost,
(ii) shall lodge a police complaint in the jurisdictional police about the loss/theft of the original sale deed,
(iii) shall deliver the copies of (i) and (ii) along with an Indemnity Bond with respect to the original sale deed executed in favour of the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
4. The opposite parties are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.
5. The opposite parties are directed to comply the above said order as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 to 4 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 75 days from the date of this order.
6. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
7. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 23th Day of November 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
