w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority v/s Som Dutt Vasudeva


Company & Directors' Information:- HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1970GOI005276

Company & Directors' Information:- HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899DL1970GOI005276

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC300616

Company & Directors' Information:- URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC166069

Company & Directors' Information:- N S T HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2001PTC093885

Company & Directors' Information:- S K HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U45201WB1990PTC048531

Company & Directors' Information:- J C DUTT & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1942PTC010917

Company & Directors' Information:- R K URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC223591

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP URBAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC164960

Company & Directors' Information:- K L DUTT & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U13209WB1945PTC012224

Company & Directors' Information:- P N DUTT & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U66020WB1941PTC010787

Company & Directors' Information:- N DUTT & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1924PTC004901

Company & Directors' Information:- U R HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209PB2012PTC036764

Company & Directors' Information:- A. B. URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH2015PTC267677

Company & Directors' Information:- R & S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TN2009PTC071067

Company & Directors' Information:- J B DUTT & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24232WB1944PTC012034

Company & Directors' Information:- B K DUTT AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1937PTC008897

Company & Directors' Information:- B K DUTT & CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36900WB1934PLC008097

    First Appeal No. 28 of 2019

    Decided On, 02 January 2020

    At, Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. RANA
    By, (RETD.)
    By, PRESIDEN & THE HONOURABLE MS. SUNITA SHARMA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Shashi Bhushan, Swarn Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Sunil Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate.



Judgment Text


1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 23.11.2017 passed by Learned DCF/DCC in consumer complaint No.28/2015 titled Som Dutt Vasudeva Versus CEO-cum Secretary H.P. Housing Board (HIMUDA).

Brief facts of consumer complaint:

2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that one Flat category-II was allotted to complainant by HIMUDA in Housing Colony Mandhela Baddi District Solan H.P. It is pleaded that complainant deposited earnest money to the tune of Rs.200000/- (Two lac) with HIMUDA. It is pleaded that as per advertisement construction was to be completed within 4V (Four and half) years by HIMUDA relating to flat in question. It is pleaded that six years have passed but HIMUDA has not completed construction of flat in question and has not delivered possession. It is pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the effect that HIMUDA be directed to hand over possession of flat in question at the cost of Rs.2000000/- (Twenty lac). In addition complainant sought relief of payment of interest @ 24% per annum from the date of initial deposit of consideration amount till actual possession of flat in question. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.

3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant has no locus standi to file present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainant has concealed material facts from Forum and it is pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing consumer complaint due to his act, deed, conduct and acquiescences. It is pleaded that mandatory notice as required under section 49 of H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority Act 2004 not served upon HIMUDA. It is pleaded that completion period of construction was tentative in nature. It is pleaded that HIMUDA has completed all infrastructures work in civil such as development of roads, service lanes, external supply work, laying of external sewerage network, sewerage treatment plants, foot paths and drains in the year 2012. It is pleaded that HIMUDA has deposited requisite amount with HPSEBL for external electrification work and it is pleaded that external electrification work has not been completed by HPSEBL despite various verbal and written requests by HIMUDA. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.

4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned DCF/DCC partly allowed consumer complaint and ordered HIMUDA to handover possession of flat to complainant complete in all respects within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of order. In addition Learned DCF/DCC ordered HIMUDA to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by complainant from 05.11.2012 till possession of the flat is handed over to complainant. In addition Learned DCF/DCC ordered HIMUDA to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand) for mental harassment. In addition Learned DCF/DCC ordered HIMUDA to pay costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) to complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned DCF/DCC HIMUDA filed present appeal before State Commission.

5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.

6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.

1. Whether appeal filed by HIMUDA is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether execution of conveyance deed before Sub-Registrar is mandatory under law to transfer title of flat in question when value of flat is exceeding Rs.100/- (One hundred) as per section 17 of Registration Act 1908?

2. Final order.

Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:

7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that flat in question was allotted to deponent by HIMUDA on dated 24.05.2008 vide Annexure-B placed on record. There is further recital in affidavit that till date HIMUDA did not handover possession of flat in question to deponent and committed deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant.

8. HIMUDA did not adduce any rebuttal evidence by way of affidavit relating to controversial facts. Learned Advocate for HIMUDA has given statement before learned DCF/DCC on dated 02.03.2016 that version alongwith affidavit and documents already filed by HIMUDA be read in evidence and closed the evidence.

9. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of HIMUDA that order of learned DCF/DCC directing HIMUDA to handover possession of flat to complainant complete in all respects within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of order is contrary to laws and contrary to proved facts because till date conveyance deed as required under mandatory section of Registration Act 1908 has not been executed relating to flat in question in favour of complainant and on this ground appeal filed by HIMUDA be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled laws that title in immovable property wherein value is exceeding Rs.100/- (One hundred) could be transferred only by way of registered conveyance deed as per mandatory provision of section 17 of Registration Act 1908. See AIR 1961 Apex Court 1747 titled Ram Saran Lall & Ors. v. Mst. Domini Kuer & Ors., 1961 (SLT SOFT) 372 There is no evidence on record in order to prove that conveyance deed stood executed inter se parties relating flat in question before Sub-Registrar. Admittedly value of flat in question is exceeding Rs.100/- (One hundred). It is well settled law that unless conveyance deed is not executed before Sub Registrar relating to flat in question whose value is exceeding Rs.100/- (One hundred) then title does not pass in favour of vendee. It is held that execution of conveyance deed relating to flat in question is mandatory under section 17 of Registration Act 1908.

10. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of HIMUDA that HIMUDA has completed all infrastructures work in civil such as development of roads, service lanes, external supply work, laying of external sewerage network, sewerage treatment plants, foot paths and drains in the year 2012 and only external electrification work is to be completed by HPSEBL Authority and HIMUDA has deposited entire requisite amount for external electrification work with HPSEBL Authority and despite several requests HPSEBL Authority did not complete external electrification work and on this ground appeal filed by HIMUDA be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record vide Annexure OP-1 that Executive Engineer HIMUDA has written letter to Sr. Executive Engineer Electrical Division HPSEB Ltd. Baddi District Solan H.P. to install 11 KV HT line from Jharmajri to Mandhela. State Commission is of the opinion that HIMUDA was under legal obligation to take coercive action against Electricity Department for not providing electricity connection despite deposit of requisite amount by HIMUDA. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that HIMUDA has taken any coercive action against Electricity Department.

11. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to penalize complainant for no fault of complainant. It is well settled law that Consumer Protection Act is consumers oriented and Consumer Protection Act was enacted by Parliament of India in order to protect interest of consumers.

12. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of HIMUDA that Learned DCF/DCC has imposed excessive compensation upon HIMUDA to the tune of Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand) and on this ground appeal filed by HIMUDA be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that HIMUDA did not take any coercive action against Electricity Department for not providing electricity connection despite deposit of requisite amount by HIMUDA in the account of Electricity Department. Hence State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to reduce compensation amount ordered by Learned DCF/DCC.

13. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of HIMUDA that Learned DCF/DCC has ordered excessive litigation costs to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) to complainant and on this ground appeal filed by HIMUDA be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that reasonable litigation costs has been ordered by Learned DCF/DCC and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to reduce litigation costs because complainant has engaged Advocate before Ld. DCF/DCC and has paid Advocate fee and also incurred litigation expenses.

14. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of HIMUDA that costs of flat in question was tentative in nature and was not conclusive in nature and on this ground appeal filed by HIMUDA be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused terms and conditions of allotment letter. As per terms and conditions of allotment letter Annexure-B costs of flat in question was tentative costs in nature and was not conclusive costs in nature. It is well settled laws that costs could be altered subsequently keeping in view the price index of construction material. It is well settled law that complainant is not legally competent to flout terms and conditions of allotment letter. It is held that terms and conditions of allotment letter Annexure B are binding upon complainant. See 2016 (4) CPR 487 (NC) Amandeep Kaur v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Ors. See I (2017) CPJ 643 (NC)=2017(3) CPR 52 NC Haj Committee of India v. Mohd. Ahsan Reza IPS and Ors.

15. It is proved on record that HIMUDA has issued registered letter Annexure A-1 dated 25.06.2015 to complainant wherein HIMUDA has assessed final costs of flat in question after rebate to the tune of Rs.2468000/- (Twenty four lac sixty eight thousand) and HIMUDA has specifically mentioned in registered letter Annexure A-1 that amount of Rs.1241922/- (Twelve lac forty one thousand nine hundred twenty two) is payable by complainant within 45 (Forty five days) from 25.06.2015. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that complainant has paid balance consideration amount of Rs.1241922/- (Twelve lac forty one thousand nine hundred twenty two) within 45 (Forty five days) from 25.06.2015. Vide corrigendum dated 10.06.2015 number of Category-II flat No.201 allotted to complainant was changed to Flat No.203. Unilateral change of flat number contrary to earlier allotment letter is not permissible under law on the part of HIMUDA.

16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of Learned DCF/DCC is in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts and same does not warrant any interference by State is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient on principles of natural justice to direct complainant to deposit balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1241922/- (Twelve lac forty one thousand nine hundred twenty two) alongwith interest and also to direct HIMUDA that thereafter HIMUDA will execute conveyance deed in favour of complainant relating to flat in question in accordance with laws. Vide letter Annexure-B dated 24.05.2008 HIMUDA has fixed tentative costs of flat in question to the tune of Rs.2000000/- (Twenty lac) which was accepted by complainant. As per law word tentative costs means uncertain not definite costs of flat in question. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow complainant to flout word tentative costs at this stage after acceptance of allotment letter Annexure-B dated 24.05.2008 Point No.1 is decidedly accordingly.

Point No.2: Final Order

17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by HIMUDA is partly allowed. It is ordered that complainant shall deposit balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1241922/- (Twelve lac forty one thousand nine hundred twenty two) alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 25.06.2015 till date within a month if not deposited as of today and thereafter HIMUDA shall execute conveyance deed in favour of complainant relating to flat in question within 15 (Fifteen days) before Sub Registrar after receipt of entire balance sale consideration amount and thereafter HIMUDA shall deliver possession of flat in question compete in all respects within 15 (Fifteen days) from the date of execution of conveyance deed relating to flat in question to complainant. Charges relating to execution of conveyance deed before Sub Registrar shall be paid by complainant.

18. Order of Learned DCF/DCC directing HIMUDA to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by complainant from 05.11.2012 till possession of the flat is handed over to complainant is set aside because till date conveyance deed has not been executed relating to flat in question

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

in favour of complainant as required under mandatory provisions of Registration Act 1908. 19. Order of Learned DCF/DCC that HIMUDA would pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand) to complainant for mental harassment is affirmed. Order of Learned DCF/DCC that HIMUDA would pay costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) to complainant is also affirmed. Allotment letter Annexure-B dated 24.05.2008, letter issued by HIMUDA to Sr. Executive Engineer Electrical Division Baddi District Solan H.P. Annexure OP-1, registered letter issued by HIMUDA to complainant Annexure A-1 dated 25.06.2015, Corrigendum letter dated 10.06.2015 issued by HIMUDA Annexure A-2 and letter issued by CEO-cum-Secretary HIMUDA to the Assistant Engineer HIMUDA Solan H.P. Annexure A-3 dated 31.07.2015 shall form part and parcel of order. Complainant and HIMUDA would comply order within 30 (Thirty) days after receipt of certified copy of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Order of learned DCF/DCC is modified accordingly. 20. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Certified copy of order be sent to Learned DCF/DCC forthwith for information and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. F.A.No.28/2019 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of. Appeal partly allowed.
O R