Background of the Revision Petition
A revision petition was recently brought before the legal forums by the opposite party challenging an earlier order. The background of this case stems from a first appeal that was previously dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi. Along with the dismissal of that appeal, a monetary cost was imposed on the petitioner. The core of the matter revolves around a real estate transaction and allegations of delayed service and unfair practices.
Property Booking and Initial Payments
The dispute originates from a property transaction initiated decades ago. The complainant had booked a specific plot located in Ganga Vihar Village Sadullabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, on August 24, 1987. The total agreed consideration for the plot was set at twenty thousand rupees. To secure the booking, an advance payment was made on the same day, followed by the remaining balance paid a few days later as a full and final settlement for the plot price. At the time of the transaction, assurances were given that the land was open on three sides and that physical possession would be handed over promptly.
Demands for Additional Payments
Despite the full payment of the initial plot cost, subsequent financial demands emerged over the years. Communications were sent by the opposite party requesting additional funds. Although the buyer attempted to communicate regarding these notices, responses were often lacking or conveyed through verbal demands. Eventually, a specific amount was demanded for electricity charges under the threat of plot cancellation, which the buyer subsequently paid. Furthermore, requests for registration fees, non-judicial stamp paper costs, and other miscellaneous charges were sequentially fulfilled by the purchaser over a period of time.
Allegations of Unfair Trade Practices
Despite the continuous fulfillment of financial demands, the execution of the sale deed was persistently delayed. Matters escalated when the buyer approached administrative authorities, leading to a police intervention where original payment receipts were handed over to the opposing party at their request. It was alleged that these receipts were marked as cancelled and retained by the opposite party. Additionally, concerns were raised regarding alterations to the colony layout map without providing updated documentation to the buyer. Even though a significant portion of the development was completed and other residents had settled into the area, physical possession of the disputed plot was never transferred, prompting the formal consumer complaint of deficiency in service.
