S. SREENIVASAN Vs. DEEPTI ARVIND KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under Sec. 21(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dtd. 6/2/2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1922/2017 in which order dtd. 22/8/2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shanthinagar, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 1301/2016 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dtd. 6/2/2019 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1922/2017 and/or upholding and affirming the order dtd. 22/8/2017 passed by District Forum in CC/1301/2016 and/or dismissing the complaint.

(2.) While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Petitioners/OPs) was Respondent and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Respondent/Complainant) were Appellant in the said FA/1922/2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondents were Opposite Parties (OPs) before the District Forum in the CC No.1301/2016. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 21/5/2019. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 6/10/2022 and 24/3/2023 respectively.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that the complainant has purchased a flat from the OP vide agreement of sale dtd. 6/8/2007 for a sum of Rs.32.00 lakhs. It is the case of the complainant that as per the agreement, the total consideration is inclusive of registration expenses and taxes, hence the OPs have to bear such expenses, but on account of OPs' refusal to bear such expenses, the registration and execution of sale deed was delayed and the complainant got the registered sale deed in the year 2015 by bearing an amount of Rs.3,17,000.00 towards registration/stamp duty charges. This, according to complainant, amounts to deficiency on the part of the OPs for which the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.