State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Development Authority vs Devendra on 1 February, 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: 01.02.2007 Appeal No.962/2006 (Arising from the order dated 13.06.2006 passed by District Forum(South-I), Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint case No.1523/2003) Delhi Development Authority Appellant Vikas Sadan, INA, through Ms. Girija Wadhwa, New Delhi. advocate. Versus Mr. Devendra . Respondent H.No.226, Street No.11, in person. Than Singh Nagar, Near Anand Parbat, New Delhi. 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 (Oral)
1. Respondent has appeared on its own and argued the matter and as such the appeal is being decided on merit.
2. On account of having delayed the execution of the conveyance deed of the flat allotted to the respondent, the appellant has been found guilty for deficiency in service by the District Forum, vide its order dated 13.06.2006 and directed to pay Rs.25,516/- towards the stamp duty which in the intervening period was enhanced from 8% to 13%.
3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this appeal.
4. Admittedly the stamped conveyance deed was submitted by the respondent on 18.06.1999 and respondent took over the possession of the flat on 22.02.2000. Clause 4 of the terms of the allotment provides that the allottee shall be required to attend the office of the appellant for execution of conveyance deed after taking over the physical possession of the flat at site and the conveyance deed shall be executed on production of photocopy of the site possession.
5. Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that as per this clause it was incumbent upon the respondent to attend the office of the appellant for execution of the conveyance deed after taking over the physical possession of the flat and since he did not call upon the appellant in this regard there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant. Inspite of having been reminded by the respondent vide letter dated 19.06.2001 and 10.07.2001 no action was taken. However after receiving the letter dated 19.06.2001, the appellant asked the respondent to attend its office on 24.08.2001 and in the meantime the stamp duty rates were enhanced to 13% and therefore respondent had to pay extra amount of Rs.25,516/-.
6. In our view the aforesaid clause does not contemplate that a person shall go on attending the office of the appellant for the purpose of execution of conveyance deed after he had submitted duly stamped papers with the appellant. Once the allottee submits the requisite papers it becomes the duty of the appellant to see that the conveyance deed is executed after completion of formalities. Any delay on the part of the appellant in this regard, which in this case was delay of more than a year or so, is inexcusable and verges on the offence of deficiency in service which in terms of Section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertake to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
7. May be that the appellant was not apprehending that the stamp duty rates would be enhanced or were under revision but the fact remains that the appellant took inordinately long time in executing conveyance deed. The respondent had submitted duly stamped papers during June 1996, whereas it was executed sometime in the month of August 2001 and therefore the appellant was liable to compensate the respondent for its act of omission and commission.
8. Had the appellant taken action well in time respondent would have been saved from paying extra amount of Rs.25,516/-. To say that the respondent did not inform the appellant about taking over the possession at site is difficult, as he had reminded the appellant by way of letter dated 19.06.2001 for execution of conveyance deed, wherein he had specifically informed the appellant that he had already taken over the possession at the site.
9. Foregoing reasons persuade us to dismiss the appeal being wholly devoid of merit.
10. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on 1st day of February, 2007.
(Justice J.D.Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri