State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Er. Baldev Raj vs Ropar Improvement Trust on 29 April, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.533 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 05.04.2010.
Date of Decision: 29.04.2013.
Er. Baldev Raj S/o Sh. Shadi Lal, # 391, Dashmesh Nagar, Roopnagar.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Ropar Improvement Trust, Ropar, through its Chairman.
2. Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Ropar.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
05.03.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Baldev Raj, appellant in person.
Sh. Amit Singh Sethi, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Er. Baldev Raj, appellant/applicant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal U/s 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar, for enhancement of the penal action in the form of fine and imprisonment to the defaulting officers of the Improvement Trust, Ropar and for willful disobedience of the order of the Judicial Authorities and to award necessary compensation.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant filed the application for taking action against the respondents for willful and intentional non- First Appeal No.533 of 2010 2 compliance of the order dated 23.08.2001 passed in Complaint No.80 filed on 11.04.2000, as modified vide order dated 30.09.2005.
3. The complaint filed by the appellant was accepted by the District Forum on 23.08.2001 and the appeal filed against the order of the District Forum was dismissed by this Commission. It was submitted that the respondent issued 'No Due Certificate' on 16.06.1994, but still demanded a sum of Rs.26,123/- on account of interest on delayed payment. The respondent did not execute the sale deed and failed to pay the costs. No intimation, regarding withdrawal of the letter issued for repayment, was given.
4. The respondent in the reply pleaded that there is no willful or intentional non-compliance of the order passed by the District Forum or the State Commission. No plea that the interest is payable was raised by the respondents.
5. The District Forum called Sh. Avtar Singh Azad, the then Executive Officer and recorded his statement which has been reproduced in the impugned order under appeal. The version of the appellant was also recorded.
6. The District Forum, after hearing the parties and going through the record, observed that the appeal against the order dated 23.08.2001 was decided by the State Commission on 30.09.2005 and the Collector rates for registration of the sale deed were enhanced by the Govt. w.e.f. 22.10.2002. The sale deed was executed by the respondent Trust in favour of the appellant on 16.01.2008. No non-construction charges were demanded by the respondents nor the same were paid. It was further observed that the appeal preferred by the respondent Trust was dismissed on 30.09.2005, but the sale deed was executed on 16.01.2008 and the possession was delivered on 03.01.2007 and the cheque on account of costs has been issued first time on 19.11.2007 and the respondent Trust cannot be absolved of penal consequences attracted by it due to slackness of its officers and officials. It is not a fit case for award of the imprisonment to the Executive Officer of the First Appeal No.533 of 2010 3 Trust, but the immunity cannot be granted to the Trust for delayed compliance of the order, which cannot be justified. The application was partly accepted and the respondent Trust through Executive Officer was directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The respondent Trust was given liberty to recover the same from the defaulting employee/officer of the respondent for delay in compliance of the order under execution.
7. Not satisfied by the impugned order dated 05.03.2010, the appellant has come up in the present appeal.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the District Forum. We have also heard the appellant at length and perused the written submissions given by him at the time of arguments as well as heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
9. The main grouse of the appellant is that the sale deed was to be executed on the reserved price of the plot at the time of its allotment. The statement of Sh. Raj Kumar Kapoor, E.O., Improvement Trust is dated 07.01.2008. The said E.O. made the following statement (relevant portion):-
"The sale deed will be got executed on the reserved price of the plot at the time of its allotment. The sale deed will be executed within a period of 10 days positively. Stamp papers for the reserved price of the plot should be submitted by the applicant by tomorrow in the office of Improvement Trust, Ropar".
10. As per the information received by the appellant under the RTI Act, 2005, it was intimated to the appellant on 19.03.2013 that the original sale deed was handed over to the allottee on 17.01.2008 and the stamp amount can be found out from the original, but as per the office copy kept in the Trust record, the amount of the stamp is entered as Rs.7600/-. The respondent Trust has executed the sale deed with the stamp papers of Rs.7600/- which was as per the reserve price of the plot at the time of its allotment. When the sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar for First Appeal No.533 of 2010 4 registration of the same, it has been impounded by the Revenue Authorities on the grounds that the stamp duty is less and the Collector, Ropar vide order dated 28.05.2009 ordered that Rs.1,61,730/- plus interest be recovered and the original sale deed be released to the parties. Against this order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner, Roopnagar Mandal, Roopnagar and the Commissioner vide order dated 21.09.2012 has dismissed the appeal.
11. From the above, it is clear that the respondent Trust has asked the appellant to affix the stamp papers as per the original reserve price i.e. Rs.7600/- and the sale deed was executed, but the Revenue Authorities have impounded the sale deed on the grounds that the stamp duty is less. As per the averments of the respondents, the stamp duty of Rs.7600/- was affixed by the appellant and if during the pendency of the complaint and the appeal, the Collector rates were revised by the Govt. and for the delay caused by the respondent , the appellant cannot be made to suffer. He has been running from pillar to post to get his due and ultimately when the sale deed was executed, he has been asked by the Revenue Authorities to pay the stamp duty as per the prevalent rates as affixed by the Govt., but the delay has been caused by the various lapses, omissions and commissions on the part of the respondents and for that, the appellant cannot held liable. The respondents were supposed to get the sale deed executed as per their own undertaking in favour of the appellant and the respondents are liable to pay the extra stamp duty, if any, for the execution and attestation of the sale deed, as it was their moral and legal duty to do so.
12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to get the sale deed executed and attested in favour of the appellant, by making the deficiency good of the stamp duty, as demanded by the Revenue Authorities. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of. Remaining order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. First Appeal No.533 of 2010 5
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 22.04.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member April 29, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)