SULACHANA HALDER vs ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT.LTD

THE complainant''s case is that she paid a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/- for a flat measuring about 750 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 260/- at premises No. 421 A, Parnasree Palli, Calcutta-7 and Rs.8998/- towards purchase of stamp paper and registration fees and other incidental legal expenses for registration of conveyance deed for the said flat. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties gave possession of the flat on 5.3.1991 in unfinished condition but the Opposite Parties did not take any steps for registration of the conveyance deed in respect of flat. Several reminders were given by the complainant but to no effect. Hence the complainant prays for direction upon the Opposite Parties to register the conveyance deed in respect of the flat and to pay the enhancement in the stamp duty for his registration of a flat and also registration cost etc. and also prays for damages and costs of the proceedings etc.

THE Opposite Parties denied all material allegations contained in the petition of complaint and specifically pleaded that the petition of complaint is not maintainable under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 and contended that the dispute in question cannot be branded as consumer dispute and therefore do not come within the purview of the said act and this Hon''ble State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant case. The Opposite Parties further alleged that the complainant was allotted two flats and it was the condition that she would not transfer by sale, the flats prior to conveyance of the same but the petitioner/complainant in violation of the specific clause of the agreement sold out one flat out of two flats allotted to her at a higher price for pecuniary benefit and the said fact has been suppressed by the petitioner/complainant. It is also the allegation of the Opposite Parties that it caused major addition and alteration of the said two flats for which the complainant agreed to compensate the Opposite Parties but she failed and neglected to do so. It is further alleged that due to inordinate delay for making payment of consideration money for the two flats, the construction could not be completed within the stipulated time. The Opposite Parties denied in particular the delivery of flats in unfinished condition. It is also the allegation of the Opposite Parties that the petitioner/complainant although had tried to evade stamp duty by insisting on to the Opposite Parties to register the conveyance deed only on the basis of valuation of land but not on the basis of the valuation of the flats raised upon proportionate share of land allotted to the petitioner/complainant. The Opposite, Parties also denied their responsibility for making payment in the enhancement of the stamp duty and registration fees for registering the conveyance deed in respect of the flat and prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition with examplary cost. DECISION

It is admitted that there was an agreement for purchase of a flat at and for a price of Rs. 1,70,000/- measuring 750 sq. ft. It is also admitted that the payment of entire consideration was made by the petitioner /complainant to the Opposite Parties. It appears that the petitioner/complainant paid Rs. 8,998/- towards cost of stamp duty and registration charges for conveyance deed in respect of flat. But the said amount was most insufficient for cost of stamp duty and registration charges in respect of a flat valued at Rs. 1,70,000/- even during the period 1989,1990 and 1991.So it is not expected that the registration of flats could be made until unless the entire cost of stamp duty and registration charges are paid by the complainant/petitioner to the Opposite Parties.

WITH regard to the contention about the maintainability of this petition before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, we are of opinion that it is well maintainable in as much as that the petitioner/complainant being hirer of service from the Opposite Parties by virtue of an agreement entered into by and between the parties for construction of a flat for which the complainant was an intending purchaser. So, any laches or lapses on the part of the Opposite Parties to fulfill their obligations comes within the purview of deficiency in service and failure to register the conveyance deed in respect of flats is definitely deficiency in service so also the non-fulfilment of their obligation as per agreement but the petitioner/complainant had also some obligations to be performed on her part namely the payment of full stamp duty and registration charges which ought to have been paid to the Opposite Parties according to valuation of the property to be conveyed but she has failed. As such she is not entitled to full reliefs as per her prayer. The approach of the petitioner/complainant is also not in clean hands as it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case. The allegation of transfer of one flat out of two flats at higher price for the benefit of the complainant is immaterial for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute between the parties. So we award directing the Opposite Parties to register the conveyance deed in respect of the flats sold to her within one month from the date of communication of the order subject to deposit, of the full stamp duty and registration charges f or Rs. 1,70,000 / deposited with the Opposite Parties at the existing rate of stamp duty and registration charges as per Stamp Duty Act. The parties will bear their respective costs. Complaint partly allowed.