GHAZIABAD: The district consumer disputes redressal commission has partially upheld a complaint from an Indirapuram resident against the developers of Shipra Krishna Srishti. The commission found the builders liable for not providing the original registered sale deed of a flat to the lender as stipulated in a tripartite agreement.
The commission has instructed the builders to deliver the original sale deed to HDFC and provide a photocopy to the complainant, Rajesh Bhalla, within 15 days. If they fail to comply, they must issue a public notice in two national dailies at their own expense, stating that the original deed for Flat No. JAC-403 in Shipra Krishna Srishti, Indirapuram, was lost while under their custody.
The forum also ordered the builders to pay Rs 50,000 for mental anguish and legal costs within 45 days; otherwise, the amount will accrue 6% simple annual interest until settled.
Commission president Anil Kumar Pundir, along with members Shailja Sachan and RP Singh, delivered the judgment on May 25, while dismissing HDFC’s alleged deficiency in service.
According to the complaint, Bhalla and his co-allottees — his father Baldev Krishna Bhalla and his wife Venika Bhalla — booked the flat in Shipra Krishna Srishti, a group housing project in Indirapuram, and secured a home loan from HDFC.
A tripartite agreement involving the buyers, the lender, and the builders — Shipra Estate Limited and Jaikrishna Estate Developers Private Limited — was signed on December 5, 2022, with the sale deed registered on January 30, 2023.
Bhalla informed the commission that he had repeatedly attempted to obtain a copy of the original sale deed, required as security against the home loan, but was unsuccessful despite numerous emails and reminders. He subsequently issued a legal notice on April 3, 2024.
In their response, HDFC stated they had continuously reached out to the builders for the original deed but had not received it. The lender clarified that it had merged with HDFC Bank and argued that they could not be held responsible for any deficiency in service, supported by email correspondence documenting their attempts to contact the developers.
The builders did not attend the commission meeting nor provide a response by the deadlines set, leading to ex parte proceedings against them.
After reviewing the evidence and documentation submitted, the commission concluded that Clause 7 of the tripartite agreement clearly mandated the builders to provide the original registered sale deed directly to HDFC.
The commission acknowledged that email communications illustrated HDFC’s consistent efforts to obtain the document from the builders, which ultimately proved fruitless.
“Based on the evidence and circumstances of the case, the Commission finds that the builders violated the tripartite agreement by failing to deliver the original registered sale deed to the bank, constituting a deficiency in service towards the complainant, who is entitled to compensation,” the commission ruled.
Ultimately, the commission determined that the deficiency lay with the builders and not the lender, affirming that the builders breached the agreement by failing to deliver the original registered sale deed.
