State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shalimar Estates (Pvt.) Ltd vs Asha Gupta on 2 July, 2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal case No.51/2010 Shalimar Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. SCO No.110-111, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. Appellant Versus Asha Gupta W/o Sh.Rajesh Gupta, resident of Plot No.261, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. --Respondent Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 29.12.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U.T.Chandigarh. Argued by : Sh.Arun Kumar, advocate for appellant. Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh,advocate for respondent. Appeal case No.52/2010 Ms.Asha Gupta W/o Sh.Rajesh Gupta,plot No.261, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. --Appellant Versus Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, SCO No.110-111, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh. --Respondent Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 29.12.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U.T.Chandigarh. Argued by : Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh, advocate for appellant Sh.Arun Kumar, advocate for respondent. BEFORE : Honble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President Mrs.Neena Sandhu,Member JUDGMENT
2.7.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. The aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.831/2009 filed by Asha Gupta (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) was allowed against Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd.(hereinafter to be referred as OP) in the following terms ;
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to issue the sale deed in favour of the complainant and to get it registered. The OP shall also pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing her mental and physical harassment and also for taking a false ground in the written reply. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of litigation. The order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which OP would be liable to pay interest on the above mentioned amount @12% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.06.09, till the order is complied with and/or the amount is actually paid to the complainant.
2. In fact appeal No. 51/2010 has been filed by Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. for setting aside the impugned order on the ground that there was stay order against Govt. of Haryana passed in CWP No.2437 of 2003 against dispossession and demolition,so, sale deed could not be executed for the plot allotted in favour of the Complaiant. Whereas appeal No. 52/2010 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. Since, in both these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, so, we are deciding these appeals by this common judgment.
3. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of these two appeals may be recapitulated thus ;
The complainant applied for a Residential Plot of 6 Marla vide Application No.4536 on 22.11.2001 in Phase-I of Shalimar Estate Naggal-Alipur, Distt. Panchkula (Haryana) and deposited a sum of Rs.12,150/- as earnest money with OP vide Annexure C-1. The OP after conducting a draw of lots allotted Plot No.557P of 6 Marla to complainant at village Naggal vide allotment letter dated 19.1.2002- annexure C-2, whereupon she deposited a sum of Rs.21,262.50Ps. on 21.2.2002 as 15% of the total cost of the plot vide receipt Annexure C-3. Thereafter, the Sale Agreement was entered into between the parties according to which balance amount of Rs.10,0237.50 Paise was to be paid by the complainant in 6 annual installments with 15% interest. The complainant paid all the said installments as per the schedule by 18.1.2008 and thereafter visited the OP on 19.1.2008 for registration of the plot but the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other without her consent for postponement of the date for registration of the plot. Complainant requested OP several times to get the sale deed registered but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking direction to OP to get the sale deed registered and to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony etc.
4. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the complainant was intimated from time to time to deposit the due amount with upto date interest as per the terms & conditions for the allotment of residential plot but she did not bother to clear the dues. She neither deposited the due amount, nor replied to various letters issued to her. It was admitted by OP that as per Clause No.4 of the Sale Agreement, the registration date was fixed on or before 19.1.2008. According to OP, the land in question is free hold land and the OP is the owner of it and they are not bound by the guidelines of HUDA and the criminal proceedings launched by the Haryana government for developing the Shalimar Estates have been challenged before the Punjab & Haryana High court and the proceedings initiated by Haryana Government have been stayed. It was pleaded that the complainant filed complaint just to escape herself from depositing the due amount with OP and there was no deficiency on its part. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and material brought on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite party and complainant have filed their separate appeals.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully.
7. Without going into any further details, suffice it to say that it is well established on the file that the complainant has paid all the installments and the amount due towards the plot allotted to her by OP.
Not only that, OP in its written statement also could not point out as to what amount remains to be paid by the complainant; rather from the facts and circumstances brought on file it is proved on the basis of documents annexed by the complainant that the entire amount of cost of plot has been paid as per terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the parties. Thus, learned District Consumer Forum has rightly observed that OP has failed to execute the sale deed immediately after the last installment was received by it on 18.1.2008. It is also further proved that inspite of notice issued by the complainant to OP, no steps were taken by it for execution of the sale deed.
8. Now adverting to the sole point of arguments raised on behalf of the OP regarding stay order passed by the Honble High court in CWP No.2437 of 2003 . Infact this civil writ petition was filed in the year 2003 by the OP against the State of Haryana restraining it from dispossessing and demolishing of channels laid down and raised for sewerage system and drainage system only as argued by Sh.Ravinder pal Singh counsel for complainant. Admittedly there is no stay order against the complainant or OP which could prevent any of the parties to go ahead with the registration of the sale deed as prayed for in the present case before us. Thus, we find no force in the aforesaid sole plea raised on behalf of the OP.
9. Now coming to the second appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Forum. In this regard suffice it to say that there was delay of about one and a half year in executing the sale deed after the payment of last installment for which compensation of Rs.50,000/- has already been awarded by the District Consumer Forum, which in the given facts and circumstances, we feel is quite reasonable and justified. Hence, no enhancement of compensation is warranted.
10. Consequently, both appeals fail and the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum is sustained. In the result, both appeals are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
Sd/-
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 2nd July,2010 President Sd/-
(Mrs.Neena Sandhu) Member *Js STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.
Appeal case No.52/2010Ms.Asha Gupta W/o Sh.Rajesh Gupta,plot No.261, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.
--Appellant Versus Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, SCO No.110-111, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.
--Respondent Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 29.12.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U.T.Chandigarh.
Argued by : Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh, advocate for appellant Sh.Arun Kumar, advocate for respondent.
BEFORE : Honble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President Mrs.Neena Sandhu,Member JUDGMENT 2.7.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President This appeal has been dismissed in terms of our detailed order of the even date recorded separately in connected appeal case No. 51/2010 titled Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd. Vs Asha Gupta. A copy of that order be placed on this file which shall be a part of this order.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 2nd July,2010 President (Mrs.Neena Sandhu) Member *Js