USHA AGRAWAL vs ESTATE OFFICER, M.P.H.B.

THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant against the order dated 4.4.1995 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in their Case No. 286/93 wherein the Forum has accepted the contents of the complaint as correct but in relief has directed the opposite party to deliver to the complainant the sale-deed, which they have withheld, without insistence on payment of common service charges within ten days.

APPELLANT''s contention is that the relief granted is insufficient and she should be granted relief as she had asked for in her prayer in the complaint. Arguments of both the parties, heard and records of the case perused.

The Forum has rightly held that the complainant was entitled to have the sale deed executed immediately after 22nd July, 1987 and therefore, the insistence of the opposite party for payment of common service charges before registration of sale-deed is unwarranted. This finding of the Forum has not been challenged by the opposite party.

IT has also been rightly said by the District Forum in para 8 of their order, that the opposite party has not shown any rule or law which makes payment of common service charges as condition precedent for execution of a sale-deed. Otherwise also, in their first Setter No. 9823 dated 11.8.1992 asking the complainant to execute the sale-deed, in the last line had not shown any balance as outstanding. On the other hand, that portion is crossed by a line, where the outstanding balance has to be shown.

IN letters No. 2326 dated 6.3.1993 and No. 3289 dated 6.4.1993 it has been said that all formalities for registration have been completed and completed documents have just to be presented before Registrar Office for execution but the same are withheld for want of payment of common service charges and if they are not paid, Housing Board shall not be responsible for expiry of the validity of the stamps. Surprisingly, me common service charges shown as dues are said to be Rs. 1,080/- in letter No. 3289 dated 6.4.1993, Rs. 1,440/- in letter No. 2326 dated 6.3.1993 and were Rs. 1,800/- in letter No. 14719 dated 5.12.1992 i.e. in one matter it is for five years, in second letter it is reduced to be four years, and in third letter it is reduced to be for three years seemingly at the whims of the opposite party because they have not shown any basis for these changes in the amount. These differences themselves indicate "deficiency" in service because the accounts in the office of the opposite party are probably not properly maintained otherwise why without complainants asking for it the opposite party has of its own been reducing service charges for one year every time. And it appears, had the complainant not filed a complaint before the Forum, opposite party may have probably further reduced the charges. Anyway this need not be discussed for disposal of this appeal. This has been pointed to show only as to how callously this office of the opposite party deals with public at large. The opposite party had no authority to withhold execution of sale-deed on the ground it has done so and it acted beyond jurisdiction in threatening the complainant with the consequences of expiry of the validity of the period of stamp papers. , 9, As such we allow this appeal and set aside the insufficient relief, granted by the Forum and grant reliefs as under : (1) The opposite party i.e. M.P. Housing Board without insistence on payment of common service charges shall get the sale-deed executed in the office of the Registrar within 30 days from the date of this order. Expenses relating to stamps, etc., whatsoever, as a result of expiry of the period of stamps submitted by the complainant to the opposite party, shall be borne by M.P. Housing Board. And after execution the sale deed shall be delivered to the complainant within one week. (2) The opposite party/respondent shall pay to the complainant Rs. 2,000/- as proceedings expenses incurred by him before the Forum and this Commission. (3) The opposite parry/respondent shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony, oppression, etc. as suffered by the complainant. Appeal allowed.

____________