BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Satish Kumar Saini s/o Sh.Baldev Raj Saini, R/o #1089, Phase IX, Mohali.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

[1] LIC Housing Finance Ltd., through its Area Manager and authorized officer, C/o SCO 2445-46, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

[2] Mrs. Jasbir Kaur w/o Sh. Kuljit Singh, R/o #1507, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

[3] Smt. Ram Piari w/o Sh. Chattar Pal, R/o Vill. Bhankarpur, Backside Allenzer Factory, Ramgarh Road, Derabassi, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

          Sh. Sumit Batra, Counsel for OP No.1.

           Sh. Manmohan Singh, Counsel for OP No.2.

           OP No.3 ex-parte.

PER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,MEMBER

         Precisely put, the complainant along with OP No.2, in response to the Sale Notice of OP No.1, dated 19.6.2007 (Ann.A-1) for the sale of six residential properties, duly mentioned in Para No. 2 of the complaint, situated at Derabassi, showed their interest in purchasing the same on 15.3.2008. However, OP No.2 changed her mind and backed-out of the aforesaid proposal dated 15.3.2008.  Resultantly, OP No.1 entered into an Agreement to Sell with Complainant on 15.4.2008 (Ann.A-3). The Complainant paid the entire consideration amount to OP No.1, whereupon OP No.1 (LICHFL) issued ‘No Due Certificate’, in favour of Complainant on 31.3.2009 (Ann.A-4).

         It is alleged, that as per Clause 4 of the Agreement to Sell, on receipt of entire consideration amount, OP No.1 was supposed to issue & execute the Sale Certificate in favour of the complainant, which they failed to do, despite repeated requests. It is also averred that the Complainant had further executed an Agreement to Sell in favour of OP No.3 on 7.2.2011 (Ann.A-5) and the last date for execution of Sale Deed in his favour was 30.4.2011. However, the Complainant could not execute the sale deed in favour of OP No.3, for want of sale certificate, which was to be issued by the OP No.1.  Thereafter, complainant sent a representation to OP-1 on 14.3.2011 (Ann.A-6) and then a legal notice on 17.3.2011 (Ann.A-7) for registration of sale certificate in his favour, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.   

2]       OP No.1, in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that OP No.2 never backed-out from the proposal executed on 15.3.2008. Rather, OP-2 wrote various letters to the replying OP, showing her interest to get the sale deed registered in her name. She had paid an amount of Rs.8.00 lacs to the replying OP vide Bank Draft dated 29.04.2008, out of the total consideration amount, of Rs.12,75,770/-. It is stated that the complainant had manipulated the original documents, as OP-1 had already issued the Full & Final Payment Certificate, dated 18.4.2009, in the joint name of Complainant as well as OP-2.  Therefore, the Certificate placed on record by complainant as Ann.A-4 is totally manipulated one.  It is also stated that the Agreement to sell, dated 15.4.2008, is a forged & fabricated document. It is further clarified that the various sale certificates in the joint name of Complainant and OP No. 2 were ready; but they did not turn up to receive the same. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

3]      The OP No.2 in her written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that there was no occasion for her to back out from the deal.  She was the co-owner in the property to the extent of 2/3^rd share, as she had paid a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.12.55 lacs; whereas, the Complainant had paid only an amount of Rs.4.55 lacs. It is asserted categorically that the agreement to sell, dated 15.4.2008 and No Due Certificate, dated 31.03.2009, are forged & fabricated documents. It is pleaded that the Complainant had played a fraud, not only with replying OP, but also with OP No.3 by executing the document on 7.2.2011, showing himself as the sole owner of the property in question, knowing fully well that he was only a co-owner/co-sharer in the said property. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]       The OP No.3, initially, appeared in person, but subsequently did not turn up. Therefore, she was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.4.2011.

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have also perused the record.

7]       The main grouse of the complainant is that OP No.1 & 2 knowingly caused him wrongful loss, with malafide intentions.  It is contented that despite paying entire consideration amount to LIC Housing Finance Limited and execution of Agreement to Sell, dated 15.4.2008 in respect of the property in dispute; the OP-1 did not execute & issue Sale Certificate in favour of the complainant, as was supposed to be, per Clause 4 of the Agreement. 

8]       The complainant asserted, that he has further executed an agreement to sell of the said property to OP No.3 (Ann.A-5), but could not do so for want of Sale Certificate from OP No.1.  In that connection, he had made a representation to OP No.1 as well on 14.3.2011 (Ann.A-6), to execute/issue Sale Certificate in his favour.  On the contrary, Opposite Party No.1 is not only delaying the matter, without any specific reasons, but also illegally trying to generate the interest of OP No.2 in the properties, which has been purchased solely by the complainant from LICHFL/OP-1; for which OP-1/LICHFL had already issued a Certificate of Full & Final Payment in favour of the complainant on 31.3.2009 (Ann.A-4).

9]        Whereas, Opposite Party No.1, refuting vehemently the allegations made by the complainant, averred in its written statement that firstly, the Agreement to Sell, presented by the complainant, was a forged & fabricated document; secondly, the joint proposal was forwarded by the complainant as well as Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, various Sale Certificates, in joint names were also ready. However, Opposite Party No.1 had denied the allegations of the complainant that Opposite Party No.2 has ever back-out from that proposal.

10]      On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 has contended that she was the co-owner/co-sharer of the said property, after making payment to the tune of Rs.8.00 lacs. She further argued that she has never ever backed-out of the said proposal and furthermore, the NO Due Certificate, placed on the file by the complainant, is a forged & fabricated document.  She vehemently rejected the claim of the complainant about showing himself as the Sole Owner of the property in dispute. 

11]      After perusing the documents placed on filed by both the parties, in detail & deeply, as well as determining the facts & circumstances of the dispute in question, the lone document, which has specifically/particularly thrown light, is Certificate issued by LIC Housing Finance Ltd., placed on record as Annexure C-4 at Page No.15, dated 31.3.2009, duly signed & issued by Nandini Bansal, Dy.Manager, Area Officer, Chandigarh, on behalf of LIC Housing Finance Ltd.  The relevant extract of said Certificate (Ann.A-4) is reproduced below:-

“This is to confirm that Mr.Satish Kumar Saini son of Sh.Baldev Raj Saini resident of House No.1089, Phase IX, Mohali has paid full and final payment against purchase of six residential plots situated at Derabassi and there is nothing due in respect of the same.        

12]      The statement contained in this certificate (Ann.A-4), is self-explanatory, left no room for any doubt or controversy.  Furthermore, if the rebuttal arguments of OPs are to be believed, saying that ‘that very document placed on file as Ann.A-4 is forged & fabricated one’, even then, there is not any cogent & plausible justification is there, to controvert the said Certificate. Even during the course of arguments, the Opposite Parties stress on this particular issue, but failed to prove anything in their favour.

13]     Moreover, the onus was squarely on OP No.1-(LICHFL) to prove that the documents placed on record by the complainant as Ann.A-3 & A-4 are forged & fabricated, as alleged by them. A mere verbal assertion or bald statement that these documents are forged & fabricated, in the absence of substantial/cogent evidence/ document, is not sustainable.

14]     More so, the Agreement to Sell, dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure A-3) has been executed between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 (LICHFL).  Admittedly, OP No.2 is not a party to this Agreement i.e. Ann.A-3. Therefore, it can legitimately be concluded, without any hesitation, that OP No.1 had issued the No Due Certificate (Ann.A-4), particularly in favour of the Complainant; as the contract/agreement was only with him and not with OP No.2.  This further proves that the No Due Certificate (Ann.A-4) cannot said to be a forged & fabricated document. 

15]     OP No.2 specifically stressed that she is the co-owner/co-sharer in the property in dispute, as she has made the payment of Rs.8.00 lacs to LIC Housing Finance Ltd., in order to purchase the said property.

16]     The point, which needs clarification of the matter, is that whether making of payment alone, can make a person owner/co-owner/sharer/ co-sharer, until and unless the documents proved it so.  Hence, the ownership/co-ownership has to be specified & certified by the concerned authoritative agency, in order to put the stamp of authenticity. 

17]     In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that once OP No.1-LIC Housing Finance Limited had issued No Due Certificate (Ann.A-4) that nothing is due, then they were legally bound to execute/issue Sale Certificate in favour of the complainant in respect of the properties as mentioned in Ann.A-4.  By not doing so, they certainly remained deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant and also indulged into unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the present complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP No.1- LIC Housing Finance Limited is directed to issue the Sale Certificates in favour of the complainant alone in respect of the properties as mentioned in Ann.A-4 and to further register the same in the office of Sub-Registrar, Derabassi. OP No.1 (LICHFL) is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony & physical harassment, apart from Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

18]     This order be complied with by OP-1 (LICHL), within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it would be liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 28.3.2011, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

19]     However, the complaint qua Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 stands dismissed being not maintainable.

20]     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.