BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Wednesday, 11th June 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 57 / 2013
P. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late P. Munivenkatappa,
Aged 62 years, Retired Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Kadapa,
Now residing in D.No. 5-202, Bache Rao Street,
Near BSNL Office, Kadapa city, YSR District. Complainant.
Vs.
1. District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department,
Old RIMS govt. Offices Complex, Christian Lane,
Kadapa City.
2. Sub-Registar, Registration and Stamps Department,
Kadapa Rural, Near Govt. ITI,
Kadapa City. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 06-06-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri V. Eswara Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Subramanayam, Govt. Pleader for O.P.1 and O.P.2 and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 requesting this forum to direct the Opposite parties:-
(a) Direct the opposite parties to pay court fee of Rs. 60,040/- in S.O.P. No. 465/2011 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa , Advocate fee of Rs. 20,000/- and miscellaneous expenses Rs. 20,000/- for conducting the S.O.P.
(b) Expenses incurred for filing of the complaint in the District Forum, Kadapa Rs. 2,000/-
(c) Deficiency of service may be equal to Rs. 1,50,000/-
(d) Endured mental agony at senior citizen’s stage equal to Rs. 3,00,000/-
(e) Travel expenses in in hovering to Revenue officers for 3 years from 2010 to 2013 to Rs. 48,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant’s uncle late Pondagula Pitchaiah and his mother Subbamma possessed 5.00 acres and 4.77 acres of D.K.T lands in Kopparthi village of Chinthakomma Dinne Mandal of Y.S.R District in Survey Nos. 669/1 and 669/2 respectively. The complainant stated that the said lands were acquired by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and the compensation amount of Rs. 5,07,000/- and Rs. 4,83,675/- were with Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa and the complainant being the legal heir after the demise of the alottees of the land and the wife of the said Pitchaiah, Smt. Venkata Lakshumma in lack of issue to them the complainant is the legal heir approached the Tahsildar, C.K. Dinne Mandal with representation for the payment of the said compensation amount.
3. In this context the complainant obtained the encumbrance certificate for the above mentioned two survey Numbers. As both the certificates were with –NIL- encumbrance. The complainant approached the Court for “Succession Certificate” as per the requisite of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. Duly paying the court fee of Rs. 60,040/- in A.C. No. 10422378285 for the S.O.P. No. 465/2011.
4. The complainant further stated that after the observation of the all the court procedures the complainant obtained succession certificate on 12-12-2011 and approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa for the payment of compensation. For the reasons best known to them the payment of compensation was dragged for more than one year. Then the complainant approached Dist. Legal Services Authority, Kadapa in January 2013 for early payment of compensation. On 15-3-2013 the complainant received copy from the legal Services Authority, which was submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa that the survey Nos. 669/1 and 669/2 were already sold away by the Late Venkata lakhsumma and as per the document and encumbrance certificate furnished by the Sub-Register of the Kadapa rural and the complainant not entitled for compensation. The complainant got astonished over the encumbrance certificate dt. 16-2-2013 as by the earlier encumbrance certificate obtained by the complainant were nil report.
5. The Complainant further stated that if the transactions were to be shown in the encumbrance certificate obtained by the complainant earlier the complainant would not have ventured to go to the court and would not have obtained the succession certificate and would not have incurred a heavy loss of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In the process of getting the compensation for the above said lands which process consumed three long years to get negative reply and the quantum of immeasurable of mental agony. Enduring being a senior citizen. Hence, this complaint.
6. Opposite party No. 2 filed counter and the same is adopted by opposite party No. 1 and denying all the allegations made by the complainant.
7. The Opposite parties stated that there is no relationship of consumer and the element of service does not arise issuance of encumbrance certificate is one of the functioning of the Registration Department. It cannot be said that the complainant had the services of the department for the purpose of obtaining the encumbrance certificate any rate there is protection clause provided U/s - 5 of Registration Act. In the encumbrance certificate that the registration department is not liable for any omissions or commissions regarding the entries in the encumbrance certificate.
8. It is further stated that originally there was single office covering jurisdiction of entire Kadapa Rural and urban the said office was located by the side of Head Post office, Kadapa. The said office was shifted to Old RIMS, Campus, Kadapa. Late on the Govt. bifurcated the office in to Urban and Rural. The Rural office was setup on Balajinagar of Kadapa town. The registration records was sent to rural office regarding registration prior to the establishment of the said office. Thus some mistakes were crept in the entries while issuing the encumbrance certificate. It is only inadvertent mistake. No malice can be attributed to the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint has to be dismissed in with cost.
9. To prove the case the complainant filed an affidavit along with documents and got marked Ex. A1 to A5 and also filed written arguments. There is no documents marked on behalf of opposite parties.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of their opposite party?
- To what relief?
11. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The contention of the complainant is that the complaiannt’s uncle late Pondugula Pitchaiah and his mother Subbamma possessed 5.00 acres and 4.77 acres of DKT lands in Kopparthi village of Chinthakommadinne Mandal of YSR District in Survey No. 669/1 & 669/2 and the said lands were acquired by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and the compensation amounts of Rs. 5,07,000/- and Rs. 4,83,675/- were with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. The complainant being the legal heir after the demise of the allottees of the land and the wife of the said Pitchaiah Smt. Venkata Lakhsumma in lack of issue to them the complainant is the legal heir approached the Tashildar, Chinthakommadinne Mandal of YSR District with the representation for the payment of the said compensation amount and the complainant obtained the encumbrance certificate for the above mentioned two survey numbers and the both the certificates were NIL encumbrance.
12. After that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa gave an endorsement to the complainant on 24-1-2010 to obtain succession certificate from the competent Civil Court. The complainant approached the court for succession certificate as per the requisite of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. Duly paying the court fee of Rs. 60,040/- the complainant obtained succession certificate from the Court on 12-12-2011
13. There after the complainant approached to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa for the payment of compensation but they dragged for more than one year for payment of compensation. After that the complainant approached legal services authority, Kadapa in January 2013 for early payment of compensation. The complainant received copy from legal Services Authority on 15-3-2013, which was submitted by the Revenue Divisional officer, Kadapa that the survey Numbers 669/1 & 669/2 were already sold away by the Late Venkata Lakhsumma and as per the document and encumbrance certificate furnished by the Sub-Register of the Kadapa Rural and the complainant not entitled for compensation.
14. The complainant got astonished about the encumbrance certificate 16-1-2013 as by the earlier encumbrance certificate obtained by the complainant NIL report.
15. The complainant further contended that if the transaction were to be shown in the encumbrance certificate obtained by the complainant earlier. The complainant would not have ventured to go to the court and would not have obtained by the succession certificate and would not have incurred heavy loss of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
16. On the other hand the opposite parties contended that there is no relationship of consumer and the element of service does not arise issuance of encumbrance certificate is one of the functioning of the Registration Department and it cannot be said that the complainant had the services of the department for the purpose of obtaining the encumbrance certificate any rate there is protection clause provided U/s 5 of Registration Act and also stated that there was single office covering jurisdiction of entire Kadapa Rural and Urban the said office located by the side of the Head Post office, Kadapa and the said office was shifted to Old RIMS campus, Kadapa. Later the Government bifurcated the office into Urban and Rural. The rural office shifted at Balajinagar, Kadapa town and also stated that the Registration records was send to Rural office, Regarding Registration prior to the establishment of the said office and some mistakes were crept in the entries while issuing the encumbrance certificate.
17. As seen from Ex. A1 & A2 i.e. encumbrance certificates it was clear that both certificates were with NIL encumbrance. After that the complainant approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa to get the compensation aforesaid lands then the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, suggested to the complainant obtained succession certificate from the Court. As seen from Ex. A4.
18. As seen Ex. A5 the complainant paid court fee an amount of Rs. 60, 040/- and obtained succession certificate from the court, even after obtaining the succession certificate from the court the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa dragged the matter more than one year and did not paid compensation.
19. The opposite parties admitted that mistake in their counter that some mistakes were crept in the entries while issuing encumbrance certificate and other contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had the services of the department for the purpose of obtaining the encumbrance certificate any rate there is protection clause provided U/s 5 of Registration Act. In the encumbrance certificate that the Registration department is not liable for any omissions or commissions regarding entries in the encumbrance certificate.
20. In this regard the complainant placed a citation of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras V. Bramhananda Rao @ V.B.Anand Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu in O.P. No. 170/1992, that the case of Hon’ble State Commission held that “Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section 2 (1) (o) Service – Definition and scope. Includes the service rendered by the Registration Department in furnishing encumbrance certificate on payment of proper fee, failure on the part of the Registration Authorities to properly issue an encumbrance certificate amounts to gross deficiency in service and culpable negligence and another citation of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 1444/2004 held that the case of deficiency in service in issuing erroneous and defective encumbrance certificate the concerned officer including Joint Register, would be liable in deficiency of service and could be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
21. The contention of the complainant is that incurred Rs. 5,00,000/- to get the compensation for the above said lands in this regard the complainant did not filed any documentary evidence. The complainant did not prayed the court fee amount in the complaint and affidavit. He prayed in the written arguments which he prayed court fee for succession certificate as seen from Ex. A5. It is clear that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 60,040/- for succession certificate.
22. As above decisions and discussions we are opined that the complainant proved there is deficiency and gross negligence of the opposite parties and being a senior citizen for his hardship the complainant is eligible for compensation and mental agony and court fee amount, which is paid by complainant for succession certificate.
22. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the O.P.1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the complaint, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards deficiency of service, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs. 60,040/- towards court fee paid by the complainant as per Ex. A5, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 11th June 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 P/c of Encumbrance Corticated, dt. 24-4-2010.
Ex. A2 P/c of Encumbrance Corticated, dt. 26-4-2010.
Ex. A3 P/c of Encumbrance Corticated, dt. 16-2-2013.
Ex. A4 P/c of endorsement letter issued by the RDO, Kadapa, dt. 24-1-2010.,
Ex. A5 P/c of succession certificate issued by IV ADJ, Kadapa.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri V. Eswara Reddy, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri P. Subramanyam, Govt. Pleader, for O.P.1 & O.P.2
B.V.P.
