ORDER

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 06.02.2019 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 dated 22.08.2017 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 dated 06.02.2019 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1922/2017 and/or upholding and affirming the order dated 22.08.2017 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 21.05.2019.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 06.10.2022 and 24.03.2023 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 dated 06.08.2007 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/- 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.

4.       Vide Order dated 22.08.2017, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 22.08.2017 of District Forum, complainant appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 06.02.2019 in FA No. 1922/2017 allowed the Appeal, set aside the order passed by the District Forum and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,17,000/- to the complainant alongwith costs within 60 days from the date of order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of actual realization.  

5.       Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 06.02.2019 of the State Commission inter alia on following grounds:

(i)      Stamp duty was not payable by the Petitioners (OPs) as per the agreement of sale entered into between the parties.

(ii)     The consideration of the agreement of sale only mentions about registration expenses and not about the stamp duty.

(iii)    Complainant/respondent is liable to pay the stamp duty in view of Section 30 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

(iv)    Complainant had not proved that she was ready to register the property since 31.08.2008.

(v)     Petitioners were not bound to prove that there was any intentional delay on the part of the complainant. 

6.       Heard counsel of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

7.       The main issue raised in the Case are with respect to respective liabilities of the parties relating to payment of stamp duty and registration charges. While the Petitioners admit that payment of registration is their responsibility, they contend that the stamp duty has to be paid by the Allottee, i.e. the Respon