DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SHRI PARMINDER SINGH

PETITIONER Delhi Development Authority (DDA) who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II Delhi (for short District Forum) has filed this revision petition to assail the order dated 5.4.2006 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short State Commission) who dismissed their appeal.

FACTS, stated briefly are that the respondent/complainant was allotted LIG flat No.113, Pocket 13, Dwarka on hire purchase basis under the N.P.R.S. Scheme 1979. Vide letter dated 28.8.2000, the respondent/complainant applied for a change of mode of payment from hire purchase to cash down basis and for grant of permission to mortgage the flat with the financing Bank. On permission being granted, necessary formalities were completed and the consideration in terms of the demand-cum-allotment letter was deposited on 17.10.2000. The physical possession of the flat was taken on 20.3.2001 where after, the respondent/complainant requested the petitioner for execution of the conveyance deed. Accordingly to the complainant, the execution was delayed by the petitioner Authority on one pretext or the other to the extent that when the deed was finally executed on 8.8.2001, the rate of stamp duty had been increased from 8% to 13% w.e.f. 1.8.2001, as a result, he had to pay an additional amount of Rs.19,516/- to get the deed executed. Aggrieved with the conduct of the petitioner Authority resulting in the loss of the said amount, he filed a consumer compliant before the District Forum. In their defence, the petitioner/opposite party submitted that the delay in the execution of the sale deed was due to the complainant himself not fulfilling the requisite procedural formalities, in particular not furnishing NOC from the financing Bank. They pleaded that there was no deficiency on their part since the said NOC was submitted on 8.8.2001 and the conveyance deed was executed on the same day. The District Forum, after due consideration vide its order dated 17.2.2005 awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner DDA filed an appeal before the State Commission who while dismissing their appeal has passed the following order :- 7. The facts show that it was none of the business of the appellant to ask for NOC from the loan sanctioning authority. Its concern was whether it had received the total consideration amount or not. It was neither the concern of the appellant from which sources the respondent had arranged the money either by begging, stealing or borrowing. Once having received the total consideration amount and respondent having fulfilled all the requirements there was no other option left with the appellant than to go for the registration of the conveyance deed. The sequence of evidence and the facts persuade us to draw an inference that the registration of conveyance deed was withheld by the concerned official with ulterior motive. The concerned officer was bent upon not executing the conveyance deed unless respondent had fulfilled his requirement.

These are such cases which should always be looked into personally by the highest authority so as to avoid whole institution being brought to disrepute. In our view, the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum was on the lower side as to the harassment and mental agony suffered by the respondent consumer. The appeal is highly misconceived, misdirected and is hereby dismissed. We direct the Vice Chairman of the DDA to conduct an enquiry personally or get the entire matter examined through the senior most officer into the conduct of the concerned officer and recover the amount of compensation from his salary if found guilty. This process shall be completed within three months and the result be intimated to this Commission as we are dealing with such type of complaints day in and day out and the consumers invariably raise the allegations of demand of bribe by each and every concerned official of the DDA for doing their legal duty.

Aggrieved against this view of the State Commission, which the learned counsel for the petitioner terms it as harsh and unwarranted, that the petitioner/opposite party has filed this revision petition.

Shri Praduman K.Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Meenu Juneja, the Authorized Representative of the respondent have been heard and the records of the case perused.

THE grievance of the respondent/complainant against the petitioner DDA was that his request for execution of the conveyance deed was unnecessarily delayed by the official of the petitioner Authority, even though, he had made the full payment for the price of the flat in lump sum. According to the complainant, had the conveyance deed been registered soon after his request on 26.3.2001, he would not have had to pay the enhanced rate of stamp duty which was notified by the Government on 1.8.2001. THE matter, therefore, for consideration before the fora below was to consider whether the events between 26.3.2001, when a request for execution of the conveyance deed was made by the complainant and on 28.8.2000 when the deed was executed, constitute any abnormal delay ? It is not disputed that on receipt of the request of execution of conveyance deed on 26.3.2001, the petitioner Authority vide their letter dated 19.4.2001 asked the complainant to appear for the execution of the conveyance deed along with certain documents such as four photographs, possession slip in original, an affidavit to the effect that the complainant had not raised any loan against the said flat, two witnesses and in case of mortgage, NOC from the loan sanctioning authority. Both the fora below have taken the view that the petitioner Authority had no business to ask for NOC from the loan sanctioning authority, i.e. State Bank of India in this case, because the respondent/complainant had paid the full consideration that was due to the petitioner Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the submission has argued and in our view rightly that it was the policy of the petitioner Authority to insist on a NOC from the lending institution to safeguard the interest of both the DDA as well as the lending institution. In this case, since the complainant had himself sought permission of the petitioner Authority to mortgage the flat with State Bank of India, it was incumbent upon them to obtain the status of the mortgage in the form of NOC from the State Bank of India. Just because the complainant had paid the entire consideration, the petitioner, under its policy could not close its eyes, towards the interest of the lending institution with whom the flat had been mortgaged more so when it was a public sector Bank. If it was the policy of the petitioner Authority, the consumer fora should not have held it to be unnecessary. Resultantly, we find that the State Commission has gone on to make sweeping observations without any supporting material on record and has made uncalled comment that it was neither the concern of the appellant from which sources the respondent had arranged the money either by begging, stealing or borrowing. To be noted that the complainant managed to submit NOC from the State Bank of India only on 8.8.2001 and the conveyance deed was executed on the same day. The allegations of undue delay and harassment, therefore, are without any basis. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order of the fora below and allow the revision petition, however, with no order as to costs.