State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kranti Associates (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Masood Ahmad Khan on 6 July, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 06.07.2007 Appeal No.07/254 (Arising from the order dated 16.03.2007 passed by District Forum(East), Saini Encalve, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.921/2005) 1. M/s. Kranti Associates (I) Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellants (Formerly Kranti Builders & through Mr. Kailash Sharma, Engineer (P) Ltd. Advocate. 4/185, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (through its Managing Director) 2. M/s. Maitrey Tiwari & Co. through its Prop. Mr. Maitrey Tiwari, (Interior Decorator) 119, Bank Enclave, Delhi. Versus 1. Sh. Masood Ahmad Khan .. Respondents. 2. Smt. Usma Khan W/o Sh. M.A. Khan, Both R/o H.No.252, Basti Khwaja Mir Dard Road, New Delhi. 3. Corporation Bank Branch Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Through its Branch Manager, CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)
1. Appellants have filed this appeal against order dated 16.03.2007, passed by the District Forum, directing them to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- towards the amount of which respondent No.1 was deprived of, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that respondent No.1 purchased a flat No.UG-3, Upper Ground Floor built on Plot No.23-B, situated at Shalimar Extension Village Pasonda, Pargana, Loni, Ghaziabad through registered deed dated 13.05.2004. The appellant No.1, sold the flat to respondent No.1 and 2 for the total amount of Rs.13,20,000/-. The appellant No.1 assured to provide some commercial space along with the flat to respondent No.1 and 2 but appellant No.1 never delivered the possession of such commercial space to respondent No.1 and 2. The respondent No.1 and 2 pleaded that the actual value of the plot was Rs.6,50,000/-. Hence appellant No.1 charged more than Rs.6,70,000/- over and above the value of the flat. Appellants in collusion with each other cheated the respondent No.1 and 2. The appellants did not deliver the possession of the flat and two shops to the respondent No.1 and 2. The respondent No.1and 2 prayed for directions to appellants to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the flat under the sale deed alongwith two shops, cost and compensation.
3. So far as respondent No.3 is concerned it had challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum by invoking the provision of Section 17 of the Securitinization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act and pleaded that loan of Rs.13,20,000/- was sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 and 2 against which respondent No.1 deposited some amount. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that appellant No.1 is a private limited company having construction business and its Managing Director is Sh. Maitrey Tiwari, whereas appellant No.2 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of decoration of which Sh. Maitrey Tiwari is partner. Respondent No.3 is a bank who provided loan facility to the buyers of flats on the recommendations of appellant No.1.
4. The sale deed executed between the parties has very interesting features. Respondent No.3 bank advanced a loan of Rs.13,20,000/- against cash down payment of Rs.5,000/- only and that too without mortgaging the property. Admittedly the loan was given on the recommendation of the appellant No.1. Another interesting feature of the sale deed is payment of Schedule described therein which is as under: -
PAYMENT SCHEDULE:
Rs.5,000/- by cash as a advance.
Rs.9,95,000/- by pay order No.138512 dated 17.11.2003 drawn on Corporation Bank Laxmi Nagar, Delhi as a housing loan.
5. According to the sale deed residential flat covering area of 900 sq. ft. three bedrooms, 1- D/D, 1 living Room, 2-toilet and 1-kitchen and 2- balcony was sold for consideration of Rs.10,00,000/.
6. After perusal of several documents and pleas raised by the appellants as well as respondent No.3, the District Forum came to the conclusion that all the appellants and the bank were in collusion and hatched conspiracy and therefore cheated the respondent No.1 and 2 and many other bonafide purchasers, in as much as , that firstly respondent No.3 bank sanctioned loan of Rs.13,20,000/- against the property of the value of Rs.10,00,000/- and that too against down cash payment of Rs.5,000/- only and further that the bank paid loan amount without creating mortgage over the property. Secondly the amount was paid by the bank on 13.05.2004 while mortgage by deposit of title deed was created on 20.05.2004; thirdly that the appellant No.1 could not explain as to what work was done by appellant No.2 in exchange of Rs.3,25,000/- disbursed by respondent No.3 bank in favour of appellant No.2 and lastly that in some of the sale deed executed in favour of other purchasers many more facilities were provided to them, than to respondent No.1 and 2. Thus the loss suffered by respondent No.1and 2 was assessed by the District Forum to the tune of Rs.5,000/- paid at the time of agreement to sell, Rs.1,00,000/- paid towards stamp duty on sale deed and towards two instalments of Rs.11,500/- each on 26.05.2004 and 22.06.2007.
7. The aforesaid finding of the District Forum have been assailed by the counsel for the appellants on the following premise:
i).
EX-RW-3/A, document filed by the bank showing that the entire finishing renovation work in the flat in question was completed by appellant No.2 and therefore respondent No.1 had no objection to release of payment of Rs.3,25,000/- on account of said furnishing work, pursuant to application dated 01.05.2004 and finishing agreement dated 10.03.2004.
ii).
Undertaking/declaration given by respondent No.1 and 3 Bank to the effect that the property in question was in their absolute possession and occupation since 20.05.2004 and he has not created charge on this property nor will transfer this property by way of sale or mortgage.
8. The aforesaid documents do not inspire confidence as to their genuineness as they are in stereotyped shaped in English language and only the blanks have been filled up and signatures on this document are of one Azma and not respondent No.1 in whose favour the sale deed was executed. This circumstance itself shows that none of these documents were explained to the person whose signatures were obtained and moreover the present was not the actual purchaser may be was his wife.
9. A fraud was played upon the gullible person by obtaining such kind of undertaking. District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that all the appellants and respondent No.3 are in league and in conspiracy with each other and District Forum has rightly directed them to compensate the respondent No.1and 2 as to the loss suffered by them.
10. In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced today on 06th day of July 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri