Meera Singh vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.1993 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa, in complaint case No. 176/92, rejecting the claim of the complainant for refund of the excess amount alleged to have been paid by her towards the price of the shop allotted to her and for compensation.

THE complainant alleged that in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Improvement Trust, offering allotment of Shops to be constructed by the respondent, the complainant deposited the entire amount for allotment of the shop bearing No. 73, that apart from the fact that the price demanded by the respondent was excessive, the area of the shop that was being allotted to the complainant was 20 sq.ft less than what was agreed to be allotted, that there was delay in delivering possession of the shop to the complainant and that the complainant was therefore entitlid to the reliefs claimed by her on account of deficiency in service by the respondents. The respondents resisted the claim of the complainant inter alia on the grounds that there was no delay on the part of respondents in delivering possession of the shop, that the complainant herself was responsible for the delay in taking delivery of the shop No. 73 ultimately selected by her and that the price charged by the respondents was not excessive but was in accordance with the terms and conditions on which the shops were offered for sale by the respondents.

After appreciating the evidence on record the District Forum found that the Complainant herself was responsible for the delay as she went on changing her option for the shop to be allotted to her, and that the Complainant had failed to prove that the price for the shop ultimately opted by her was excessive. In this view of the matter, the District Forum rejected the claim of the complainant. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

AT the time of hearing we asked learned Counsel for the respondents whether the shop proposed to be allotted to the appellant was still available for allotment and whether the respondents were ready and willing to deliver possession of that shop to the appellant. The learned Counsel for the respondents sought time for taking instructions. We accordingly adjourned the hearing and directed the learned Counsel for the appellant to seek instructions and state on the next date of hearing whether the appellant was agreeable to take possession of the shop allotted to her on terms and conditions offered by the respondents. On the next date of hearing, the respondents submitted in writing that the total amount deposited by the complainant was Rs. 1,32,708/- which was the price of the shop No. 73 fixed by the respondents, that the respondents were still ready and willing to deliver possession of that shop to the appellant. If she was agreeable to executing the deed of conveyance after payment of requisite stamp duty and registration charges. Learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the price charged by the respondents was excessive, as the area of shop No. 73 was 20 sq. less than what was agreed at the time of allotment and that the appellant was not liable to pay stamp duty and registration charges for the deed of conveyance as demanded by the respondents. As the appellant was not agreeable to take possession of the shop No. 73 offered to her by the respondents on terms and conditions set-out by the respondents, we proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that the price charged for the shop allotted to the complainant was excessive because the shop offered to the complainant was 20 sq.ft. less in area than that agreed to be allotted to the complainant and that the complainant was not liable to pay any amount towards stamp duty and registration charges. LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that the respondents were delaying delivery of the possession of the shop to the complainant and that the complainant was entitled to the reliefs claimed by her. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. It has been amply established from the record/as rightly observed by the District Forum, that the complainant went on changing her option from time to time and that she alone was responsible for the delay that had taken place. By the letter Ex.D/1 C the complainant requested that shop No.73 be allotted to her. Her request was accepted and the respondents allotted shop No. 73 to her by order Ex.D/2 C. Thereafter the complainant changed her mind and requested by letter Ex. D/3 C that instead of shop No. 73, another shop be allotted to her. In response to this request, the respondents allotted her shop No. 76 vide order Ex.D/5 C. The complainant however again changed her mind and requested by letter Ex.D/6 C that she be allotted the same shop No. 73 which was initially allotted to her. Her request was again accepted by order Ex. D/ 7C. Learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to point out from the terms and conditions on which the shops were offered by the respondents that the price charged by the respondents for shop No.73 was excessive or that the area of the shop was contrary to those terms. As regards liability to pay stamp duty and registration charges, our attention was invited to that clause in the terms and conditions which stipulated that price would include all charges and it was contended that the expression ''charges'' would include charges for stamp duty and registration and hence the complainant was not liable to pay those charges. The contention cannot be upheld. All that is stated in the relevant condition is that the price was inclusive of service and other charges payable to the respondent Improvement Trust. Charges for stamp and registration are not payable to the respondents but to the State Government. Learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to make out any case for interference with the order passed by the District Forum. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs of this appeal. Complaint dismissed.