Consumer Complaints alleging deficiency in service related to transfer of title of immovable property not maintainable
Factual matrix:
Supreme Court in the matter of Estate Officer & Anr. vs. Charajit Kaur SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5051 OF 2018) decided on 7th September 2021 had the occasion to deal with an issue whether consumer complaint is maintainable in regard to transfer of title of immovable property.
The Respondent (herein) was granted lease of residential plot in Chandigarh for a period of 99 years under the Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “1973 Rules”) by the Central Government. The Chandigarh Administration framed the Chandigarh Conversion of Residential Leasehold Land Tenure into Freehold Land Tenure Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Rules”) which permitted conversion of residential leasehold properties to freehold properties. Pursuant to these Rules, the Respondent herein sought conversion of his plot in Chandigarh, from leasehold to freehold site after paying the requisite conversion fee.
However, this demand of the Respondent was rejected by the Appellants. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “DCDRF”) alleging deficiency of service on part of the Appellants with a prayer to direct the Appellants to convert the plot from leasehold to freehold site on acceptance of requisite conversion fee. The DCDRF allowed the said complaint and directed the Appellants to convert the plot from leasehold to freehold on acceptance of requisite conversion fee and pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; and to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
Thereafter, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “SCDRC”) vide order dated 16.05.2016 and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “NCDRC”) vide order dated 24.05.2017 dismissed the references filed by the Appellants and upheld the decision passed by the DCDRF. Aggrieved, the Appellants filed a Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Analysis of the Judgment:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.09.2021 allowed the appeal filed by the Appellants and set aside the order passed by the NCDRC.
The SC held in terms of Section 14(e) of the Consumer Act, the District Forum can inter-alia direct removal of deficiency in the services. However, the appellant was not providing any services within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Consumer Act. The expression ‘service’ includes housing construction and not allotment of a site or a plot. Therefore a deficiency in service cannot be said to include the transfer of title in favour of the allottee who was earlier granted leasehold rights.
Since the Respondent is already in possession of the plot as a lessee on 99 years basis, it cannot be said that the Appellant was deficient in providing any service, which even if used in a liberal sense would not include transfer of title in an immovable property. Thus, the consumer fora under the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property.
Hence, the orders passed by the DCDRF, SCDRC and NCDRC were set aside for lack of jurisdiction but the Respondent’s claim for conversion of plot from leasehold to freehold being denied was still held as arbitrary by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Administration had allowed conversion of leasehold properties into freehold sites even after the said letter dated 10.05.2013 was issued and hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142 directed the Administration to decide the claim of conversion as on the date when consumer complaints were filed within 3 months from the date of this order.