- (1.) THIS is an appeal challenging order dated 9.2.2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No.42/ 2009, whereby the appellant herein has been directed to execute lease -deed and sale -deed of House No.MIG -(l) -190 in Amdi Housing Scheme, Bhilai, in favour of the complainant/respondent No.1, within a period of two months, with further direction to bear expenses of registration of sale -deed and lease -deed on and above Rs.11,000, which was to be paid by the complainant/ respondent No. 1 and to pay cost of litigation Rs. 1,000.
(2.) THIS appeal was in fact earlier decided by this Commission vide order dated 28.7.2010. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum was set aside and the complaint of respondent No.1 was dismissed. That order was challenged before Hon'ble National Commission by way of Revision Petition No.3217 of 2010. Hon'ble National Commission decided the Revision Petition, vide order dated 27.5.2011, by observing that "we find that the point involved in the Writ Petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh is different than the point involved in the present case. The basis on which the State Commission has disposed of the appeal is totally wrong and cannot be sustained. Order of the State Commission is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law. All contentions are left Open. Petitioner as well a& the respondent through his counsel is directed to appear before the State Commission on 13.7.2011." Thus the Revision Petition preferred by the respondent No.1/complainant was allowed by Hon'ble National Commission and the matter has been remitted back to this Commission for a fresh decision, leaving all the contentions open.
(3.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the complainant was an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant/OP No.1 since 3.4.1958 and retired on 30.4.1997 from the post of Chargeman -Sr. Technician. During his service, he was allotted house No. MIG (D/190 under Amdi Housing Scheme on 25.2.1986. Loan facility was provided by HUDCO. As per agreement, on payment of entire amount, sale deed was to be executed in favour of the allottees and together with sale deed, lease deed for providing land on long term lease of 99 years were also to be executed. OP1 received all the installments payable by the complainant from his salary. Finally when the complainant retired on 30.4.1997 a sum of Rs. 1,976 was charged under the salary slip towards remaining amount of cost of the house. As per terms of agreement, sale deed and lease deed were to be executed after receipt of full payment from the complainant. When, the complainant repeatedly contacted OP No.1 for executing such deeds, he was told that such deeds will be executed according to the serial number. Subsequently, he came to know that lease deed and sale deed in favour of several persons were executed out of turn. It was further averred in the complaint that OP No. 1 is causing extraordinary delay in executing the documents, which amounts to deficiency in service. On 14.8.2008. Nayab Tehsildar. Nazul, Durg, issued notice to remain present for execution of lease deed, where the complainant was required to pay increased stamp duty and registration fee for no fault on his part. Such documents were to be registered in his favour in 1997 -98, but due to delay in execution of the documents, now the complainant is required to pay increased fee The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction for payment of difference amount of registration fee. by OP No.1, together with compensation for delay as well as cost of proceedings. Resisting the complaint, OP No.1 submitted that registration of lease deed was stayed by the State Government hence registration in favour of all the allottees could not be done. OP No.1 cannot be held liable for such non -registration. It was further averred that due to dispute between OP No.1 and the State Government, a writ petition is pending before the High Court, so execution of documents was not possible. Subsequently, a via -media was found and notice by Nayab Tehsildar, Nazul, Durg, was issued to various allottees to remain present for allotment of Nazul land. It was further averred in the written version that the complainant wishes to get the registration done without spending money, which is not possible. No deficiency in service has been committed by the OP No. 1. It was further averred that the complainant does not come within the category of 'consumer', hence, the complaint is not tenable. Besides this, objection was taken to the effect that the relief sought by the complainant is the subject matter of detailed investigation and evidence so the same cannot be decided in summery proceedings. It was prayed that the complaint tie dismissed with cost.;