SHRI LAKSHMI REAL ESTATE vs P.K. USHARANI

THE complainant lured by the advertisement made by the opposite party offered to buy one of the plots which were held out by the opposite party as belonging to them. Plot No. 129 was thus allotted to the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. After the payment, the opposite party delayed the registration. In the meantime, the complainant received information from her sister, who was allotted Plot No. 126, that the plots are unapproved and hence registration was refused. THE complainant thereafter issued legal notice to the opposite party to which the opposite party sent a reply intimating the complainant to have the plot registered on or before 13.7.2002. Immediately the complainant gave rejoinder on 15.7.2002. THE opposite party did not comply with the demand. Thus there is deficiency in service. THErefore, the complainant prays for refund of Rs. 35,000/- with interest at 18% along with sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE opposite party did not appear or contest. As a result after setting the opposite party ex parte, the lower Forum after hearing the complainant and perusing the document exhibited on the side of the complainant ordered the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs. 35,000/- with interest at 18% and a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence, the present appeal. The complainant''s case is contended by the opposite party. The opposite party did receive Rs. 35,000/- as sale consideration for the plot No. 129. Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 are the receipts for the payment of the said amount. While Ex. A5 is the notice issued by the complainant calling upon the opposite party to obtain No Objection Certificate from the local authorities or in the alternative to refund the sum of Rs. 35,000/-. While it was so the opposite party has sent a letter on 11.17.2002 which is apparently after the receipt of the notice of the complainant stating the complainant has not paid the registration charges and that the complainant must pay the registration charges before 13.7.2002. But the opposite party has not chosen to meet the allegations made in the notice. Therefore, the complainant sent another letter under Ex. A7 to which also there was no reply.

The learned Counsel for the appellant refers to a communication for the Sub-Registrar of Redhills stating that as per the Government Order dated 22.9.2000 sale of plots not approved by the Government should not be registered and, therefore, sale deed relating to land or plots or flats not approved by the Government are not being registered from 22.9.2002 and, therefore, in view of the said ban by the Government, the opposite party could not execute the sale deed. This argument cannot be accepted at all. Here the G.O. is said to have been issued on 22.9.2000 whereas the amounts have been received on 22.7.2000. The opposite party has not chosen to say that it was unapproved plot. Both in the complaint as well as in the notice the complainant has stated that the opposite party represented that he is the owner of the entire scheme and plots are approved by the competent authority. To the notice as well as the complaint, there is no demur. Therefore, to come and suddenly say now that because of the ban they could not execute the sale deed cannot be accepted at all. Before launching a scheme and inviting public to buy plots, they must either inform that the plots which are said to be sold are either approved or not or if they are not approved, they would take steps for getting the approval and can execute the sale deed only after such approval is granted. Such a precaution has not been taken by the opposite party. It is only after that, the opposite party has chosen to come forward and say that because of the ban, he could not execute the sale deed. Though being aware of the ban in September 2000, he has not hesitated to receive the amounts from the complainant. He has not chosen to inform the complainant about the same nor has offered to return the amount. Moreover, we find that the ban has been imposed by the Government only by G.O. dated 22.9.2000. But from the complaint we find that the entire sale consideration has been received by the opposite party as early as on 22.7.2000 nearly 2 months prior to the imposing of the ban. Nothing prevented the opposite party if he was really bona fide from executing the sale deed immediately on or after 23.7.2000, but such a step has also not been taken. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the lower Forum.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost confirming the order of the lower Forum. Cost awarded is Rs. 250/-. Appeal dismissed.