State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Estate Officer,Cidco vs Mr.Birwadkar Dinesh Ganpat on 9 February, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.RBT/A/18/1029 IN A/15/433
The Estate Officer
CIDCO Bhavan, 1st floor
CBD Belapur
Navi Mumbai 400 614 .......Appellant
Versus
Mr.Birwadkar Dinesh Ganpat
R/o.Flat no.NL-2/13/C-7
Sector 3, Nerul, Navi Mumbai ......Respondent
BEFORE: Dr.S.K. Kakade - In-charge President
Mr.A.Z. Khwaja - Judicial Member
PRESENT: Mr.Hemant Prabhulkar -Advocate for appellant
Mr.Swapnil Kale-Advocate i/b.Advocate Sarla Shinde for respondent
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Dr.S.K.Kakade, In-charge President
1. The present appeal is filed by the Estate Officer of CIDCO against the order passed by Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (now Commission) in consumer complaint no.160/2011 passed on 21/11/2014. The Learned District Forum allowed the consumer complaint filed by the respondent- Mr.Birwadkar Dinesh Ganpat in this appeal and directed CIDCO to hand over the flat to the complainant after completing relevant legal formalities by the power of attorney holder of the original flat owner within a period of two months from the date of order, additionally to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs of the complaint and mental agony.
2. Brief facts of this appeal are as follows:-
Mr.Birwadkar Dinesh Ganpat -Respondent in this appeal bought a flat bearing no.NL-2/13/C-7, Sector 3, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Saptarshi Apartment, District Thane from Mr.Arrora Gurbaksh Singh. Possession of this flat was obtained by the original 1 owner Mr.Arrora Gurbaksh Singh on 12/08/1985. After obtaining No Objection Certificate from appellant-CIDCO, original owner sold this flat to the respondent Mr.Birwadkar on 07/03/2001 by executing an agreement for sale at the price of Rs.2,10,000/-. Original owner Mr.Gurbaksh Singh executed power of attorney in favour of respondent-Mr.Birwadkar in January 2001to represent him in the transfer of said flat from original owner's name. Respondent/original complainant applied for transfer of said flat in his name and also paid transfer fees to the CIDCO. In spite of efforts, respondent/original complainant was not successful in transferring said flat in his name. Hence, respondent /original complainant Mr.Birwadkar filed complaint before the Learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane, Navi Mumbai in the year 2011.
3. Said complaint was defended by CIDCO and since the complainant/original owner did not provide necessary document -Sale Deed within stipulated time of three months after the NOC was issued by CIDCO, Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the complainant is a 'consumer' of CIDCO and directed CIDCO to transfer the said flat in the name of complainant.
4. Aggrieved by this order, appellant-CIDCO has filed this appeal bearing no.A/15/433 before this Commission, which was dismissed in default on 15/02/2018 since appellant was not duly represented on many dates before this Commission. Hence, CIDCO approached before the Hon'ble National Commission by filing revision petition against the order passed by this Commission. As per order passed by Hon'ble National Commission, appeal was restored back on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by an order dated 26/10/2018. This restored appeal is numbered as RBT/A/18/1029 and is pending before this Commission since 2018 for deciding finally.
5. Heard submissions of learned advocates for both the parties at length. As per the submission of learned advocate for appellant, CIDCO has already granted NOC (page 63 of appeal memo). It was conditional NOC by which within a period of three months the conveyance deed was to be registered and filed before CIDCO.
2Conditions of CIDCO also included that the permission given will lapse after the period of three months from the date of NOC. Further though NOC was granted in the year 2001, respondent/ original complainant approached CIDCO for extending time for complying the conditions by CIDCO only in 2011. Thus, as per submission of Learned Advocate for appellant, for the period of 10 years respondent/original complainant did nothing to comply the conditions. Instead filed complaint before the Learned Additional District Forum, Thane. Further it was contention of learned advocate for appellant that complaint filed by complainant, respondent in this appeal, was not within limitation period. Further the application for extending time limit to comply the conditions of CIDCO was filed by the "power of attorney holder" of the original owner- Mr.Gurbaksh Singh. As per rules of transfer, original owner needs to apply and the power of attorney is not accepted.
6. Learned advocate further submitted that the appellant is willing to transfer the said flat in the name of in the name of respondent/original complainant, if the original owner Mr.Gurbaksh Singh files an application and also pay further necessary fees.
7. Learned advocate for respondent/original complainant, invited attention of this Commission to the Agreement for sale, which was executed between original owner Mr.Gurbaksh Singh Arrora and complainant - Mr.Birwadkar Dinesh Ganpat. Further, as per submission the delay in filing an application for extending the time was due to ignorance of original owner- Mr.Gurbaksh Singh about the procedure of transfer. In good faith Mr.Gurbaksh Singh Arrora gave power of attorney to complainant Mr.Birwadkar as Mr.Gurbaksh Singh does not live in Mumbai.
8. Further it was contention of learned advocate for respondent that since Agreement for sale was already executed between the parties and the transfer fees was deposited with CIDCO, there should not be any time limit for filing the application for transfer. Learned advocate for respondent further submitted that receipt of transfer fee was not disputed by the appellant i.e.CIDCO. Further he prayed that since fees have already been paid for transfer, now no fees should be charged by CIDCO. He invited attention of this Commission that the Deed of 3 Conveyance is already on record.
9. In view of the submissions made by learned advocates for both the parties and on perusal of record, it is observation of this Commission that the point of dispute between the parties is very limited and for the petty reason CIDCO has unnecessarily dragged complainant into litigation i.e. this appeal. Since the transaction and execution of agreement for sale had taken place in the year 2001 and the requisite transfer fees had already been paid by the respondent/complainant, there should be no reason for not transferring the flat in the name of respondent/complainant. On perusal of judgment and order passed by the Learned District Forum, Additional Thane, the Learned District Forum has rightly pointed out that the respondent/original complainant is a 'consumer' of appellant-CIDCO. CIDCO should now transfer the said flat in the name of respondent /complainant as per the rules of transfer within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order. Complainant/respondent in this appeal should obtain an application by original owner
-Mr.Gurbaksh Singh Arrora and then CIDCO shall transfer the said flat in the name of respondent/complainant. This Commission thinks it proper that since the transfer fees once paid in the year 2001, CIDCO should not charge again the fees for transfer of flat. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Learned District Forum and proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal is hereby dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by appellant to respondent/original complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced on 9th February 2022.
[Dr.S.K. Kakade] In-charge President [A.Z. Khwaja] Judicial Member Ms 4