Case nº Revision Petition No. 4723 Of 2012, (Against the Order dated 11/09/2012 in Appeal No. 73/2012 of the State Commission Chandigarh) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, September 25, 2014 (case Satish Kumar Saini Vs LIC Housing Finance Limited and Ors.)

JudgeFor Appellant: In Person and For Respondents: Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv.
PresidentMr. Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Resolution DateSeptember 25, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member

  1. By this common order we propose to dispose of the above noted revision petitions involving similar question of law and facts.

  2. Brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant in RP Nno.4723 of 2012 are that on 19.6.2007, respondent no.1/opposite party no.1 through their authorized officer published a Sale Notice for the sale of six residential properties situated at Derabassi at certain reserve prices.

  3. On 15.3.2008, the petitioner alongwith respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 made a proposal showing their joint interest in purchasing the properties advertised by the respondent no.1. Total detail of all six properties is as under:

    S.No.

    Sale deed in favour of

    Sale deed No.

    Dated

    Area/Rakba Marla Sarsahi

    1

    Mr.Bishambar Dass

    5232

    05.12.2002

    08-03

    2

    Mrs. Madhu Khanna

    5233

    05.12.2002

    07-05

    3

    Mr.Ramesh Chander

    5999

    08.12.2002

    07-05

    4

    Mr.Pal Ram Gill

    6000

    08.12.2002

    07-05

    5

    Mr.Ashwani Kumar

    5803

    30.12.2002

    03-00

    6

    Mr.Harish Chander

    5804

    30.12.2002

    03-00

    TOTAL LAND

    1. -- Kanal, 15-Marla & 18-Sarsahi
  4. Upon receipt of proposal letter from the petitioner and respondent no.2 for purchase of above mentioned properties, the respondent no.1 being the Branch Manager/Authorized Officer had issued a letter dated 18.3.2008 to the petitioner and respondent no.2 stating therein to furnish some documents so that the deal could be finalized. After making proposal dated 15.3.2008, respondent no.2 had changed her mind and lost interest in purchasing the above said properties from respondent no.1 and had accordingly refused to furnish any document and in that way, she quit/backed out from the proposal dated 15.3.2008. Accordingly, same was communicated to the respondent no.1.

  5. Thereafter, petitioner alone showed his interest in purchasing the above said properties from the respondent no.1. Accordingly, respondent no.1 being the Authorized Officer/Branch Manager of LICHFL had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner on 15.4.2008 for sale of above mentioned properties. It was pertinent to mention here that the original stamped and signed agreement to sell was kept with the respondent no.1 in the record file of LICHFL. It was agreed that petitioner would pay the entire stipulated consideration amount to LICHFL and thereafter, obtained a No Dues Certificate from the respondent no.1.

  6. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 15.4.2008, petitioner paid the entire consideration amount to respondent no.1. Thereafter, respondent no.1 issued the No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioner on 31.3.2009.

  7. The petitioner had already paid the entire amount to respondent no.1 as per the terms and conditions of agreement for the above said properties and as per clause -- 4 of the agreement to sell respondent no.1 was to issue the Sale Certificate as and when whole consideration amount was received by them. However, respondent no.1 failed to comply with the said provisions of agreement and has not issued the Sale Certificate even after 20 months.

  8. On 7.2.2011, petitioner had executed an agreement to sell with respondent no.3/opposite party no.3 for the sale of above said properties. He made a representation on 14.3.2011 requesting the respondent no.1 for issuance of sale certificate in his favour. Since, the prices of land had since increased manifield, the intention of respondents had turned to cheat the petitioner to make illegal gains. The petitioner had requested respondent no.1 for execution and registration of sale certificate in favour of petitioner but the respondent no.1 was delaying the same without any specific reasons. Ultimately, the petitioner got issued legal notice to respondent no.1, who was at that time the Branch Manager of Chandigarh Branch Office and called him to issue sale certificate in favour of petitioner. Respondent no.1 was illegally trying to generate the interest of respondent no.2 in the properties purchased by petitioner from LICHFL.

  9. Despite the fact that respondent no.1 had entered into an agreement to sell with petitioner only for the sale of above said properties, the respondent is now illegally including the name of respondent no.2 alongwith petitioner with intention to defraud with the petitioner. The petitioner had paid the entire consideration amount to LICHFL and agreement to sell dated 15.4.2008 had been executed with him only but now at the time of issuance of sale certificate, respondent no.1, who is the authorized officer of LICHFL, is not ready to issue sale certificate in respect of the properties purchased by the petitioner, rather was illegally trying to include the name of respondent no.2 in the sale certificate of above said properties. As the petitioner had already executed the agreement to sell in favour of respondent no.3 and last date for execution of sale deed was 30.4.2011, however, petitioner cannot execute the sale deed in favour of respondent no.3 till opposite party no.1 did not issue the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner and register the same.

    It is was prayed that complaint may kindly be accepted and respondent no.1 may kindly be directed to issue the sale certificates and register the same in the office of Sub-Registrar, Derabassi well before 30.4.2011 and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental harassment.

  10. Respondent no.1/OP No.1 in her written statement before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (short, ''District Forum'') have stated that;

    That the present complaint is not maintainable before the present forum as the complaint had manipulate the original documents as the OP No.1 had already issued the full and final payment certificate dated 18.4.2009 in the joint name of complainant and OP No.2, whereas another certificate which the complainant attached with his complaint as Annexure-A-4 is totally manipulated as the same certificate annexed as Annexure A-4 was never on the office records of the OP No.1 and to prove originality of the certificate required the question of the evidence, which needs to be proved only under the Law of Evidence, hence the present forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and liable to be dismissed only on this ground.

    That the complainant who was working as DSA with the OP No.1 has not been performing his functions well as due to many...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT