AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab dated 29.04.2013. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against the petitioner Trust and its Executive Officer. The consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 23.08.2001 in following terms: ''''(i) To withdraw letter dated 2732 Dt.10 -03 -2K qua resumption of plot no. 391 situated in at Bela Road part 1 Dashmesh Nagar Ropar being illegal, null and void not binding on the complainant. (ii) To deliver the possession of the said plot without any further delay. (iii) To sanction the site plan on application and to deliver the possession subject to the compliance of due formalities by the complainant. (iv) To execute the sale deed of the plot in question on application but subject to the compliance of due formalities by the complainant. (v) To provide two year time to the complainant for construction over the plot in question to be counted w.e.f. the date of defecto -delivery of the possession. (vi) Not to recover any non construction fee for which claim had been made by it. (vii) The compliance was to be made by the O.P. within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment ''''.
THE petitioners not being satisfied with the order of the District Forum filed an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 30.05.2005 modified the relief No.5 granted by the District Forum as under: The complainant shall within a period of three weeks from today submit a duplicate plan of the house which is stated to have been submitted with the improvement trust way back in the year 1994. He would also carry out other formalities which may be required for getting the plan sanctioned. If any defects are pointed out in the plan, those would also be removed by the complainant within the stipulated period. The improvement Trust would, after completing the formalities etc. required sanction plan within a period of one month thereafter and would also offer the delivery of physical possession of the plot. The complainant would complete the construction within a period of one year with effect from the date of sanctioning of the plan/delivery of the possession, whichever is later. If the construction is not completed within the period of one year, Improvement Trust would be entitled to charge the non -construction fee in accordance with law. The rest of the directions given by the District Forum are maintained. ''''
The aforesaid order of the State Commission has become final.
ON 10.10.2007, the respondent filed an execution application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act praying for taking penal action against the petitioner Trust for non compliance of the order of the District Forum dated 23.08.2001 as modified by the order of the State Commission dated 30.05.2005. The respondent alleged in the application that the petitioner opposite party has intentionally failed to comply with the order despite of number of application moved by the respondent during the period w.e.f. 14.10.2005 till 18.09.2007. Instead of complying with the order, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.26,123/ - with interest on account of the balance price despite of the fact that the petitioner in response to the original complaint stated that total sale price of the plot with interest had been paid by the respondent complainant and no dues certificate was issued in his favour vide memo no. 2082 dated 16.06.1994. It was also alleged that the petitioner has failed to execute the sale deed and also to pay the cost of Rs.1000/ - imposed by the fora below.
THE petitioner in his reply to the execution application claimed that cost of Rs.1000/ - has been paid to the respondent complainant vide cheque no.454305 dated 19.11.2007. The petitioner also claimed in the reply that the sale deed of the plot could not be executed because of failure of the respondent complainant to clear outstanding dues and to furnish the indemnity bond. However, during the pendency of the execution petition, the petitioner executed sale deed in favour of the respondent on the stamp papers of Rs.76000/ - on the basis of stamp duty calculated as per reserved price of the plot at the time of allotment. The sale deed when presented before the Sub Registrar impounded on the ground that stamp duty paid was less and the Collector Ropar vide order dated 28.05.2009 directed that a sum of Rs.1,61,730/ - with interest be recovered and the original sale deed be returned to the parties. Respondent preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector before the Commissioner Roop Nagar Mandal and the Commissioner vide order dated 21.09.2012 had dismissed the appeal. Learned District Forum on consideration of the record and submissions made by the parties concluded that there was a deliberate delay on the part of the petitioners in complying with the order of the State Commission dated 30.09.2005 so far as execution of sale deed, delivery of possession of the plot and payment of cost is concerned, which was not explained by the respondent Trust. Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the application filed by the respondent complainant under section 27 of the Act and ordered thus: ''''For the aforesaid reasons, we partly accept the application and direct the respondent Trust through its Executive Officer, to pay fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/ -. The respondent Trust is at liberty to recover the amount of fine from the defaulting employee/officer, responsible for the delay in compliance of orders under execution, after holding enquiry as per rules governing his/her service conditions. In case of default of deposit of the amount of fine, the Executive Officer of the respondent Trust shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. ''''
THE respondent complainant not being satisfied with the aforesaid order preferred an appeal before the State Commission Punjab Chandigarh and the learned State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners in this revision petition to make good the deficiency in stamp duty as demanded by the revenue authorities.
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the State Commission is unsustainable for the reason that State Commission has ignored that the rates of stamp duty payable were enhanced by the Government w.e.f. 22.10.2002 i.e. much before the order of the State Commission dated 30.09.2005 in appeal against the order of the District Forum. Learned counsel further contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the stamp duty is payable by the purchaser and the stamp duty paid by the respondent complainant for the purpose of registration of sale deed was less than the stamp duty payable as per the enhanced rate notified by the Government w.e.f. 22.10.2002. Counsel has contended that the enhancement of the stamp duty cannot be attributed to the delay caused by the petitioner in execution of the sale deed. As such, the petitioners cannot be saddled with the liability to make good the deficiency in stamp duty as calculated by the Collector. Respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.
THE petitioner is aggrieved of the direction of the State Commission calling upon him to make good deficiency in Court Fee. On perusal of the record, we find that the order which is subject matter of the application under section 27 of the Act was passed on 30.09.2005. Undisputedly the sale deed was executed by the petitioners after a long delay of more than two years on 16.01.2008. The question is whether this delay has resulted in putting the respondent complainant under liability to pay the enhanced stamp duty. Admittedly, the rates of stamp duty were increased by Government w.e.f. 22.10.2002 and the sale deed submitted by the respondent complainant for registration was impounded because of lesser stamp duty as per the rates applicable w.e.f. 22.10.2002. Therefore, it is obvious that delay on the part of the petitioners to execute the sale deed has not added to the liability of the respondent complainant to pay enhanced Court fee because the order under execution was passed on 30.05.2005 and even if the petitioner had executed the sale deed on the same date, the liability on the respondent complainant viz -a -viz. the stamp duty would have been the same. The sale deed has been impounded because the respondent provided stamp papers of lesser stamp duty for which failure on the part of the respondent complainant, the petitioners cannot be burdened. Thus, in our view the State Commission has committed a grave illegality by directing the petitioner to make good the deficiency in stamp duty. As such impugned order cannot be sustained.
IN view of the discussion above, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs.