Date of filing:-12/07/2017.
Date of Order:-05/10/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2017.
Dayanidhi Sahu, S/o-Late Arakhita Sahu, aged about 73(seventy three) years, Occupation –Cultivation, R/o-Kubedega, P.s/Tahasil-Bheden, Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Vrs
The Tahasildar, Bargarh, Bargarh Tahasil, Bargarh having its Officer at Bargarh Po/Ps/Dist –Bargarh.
The Revenue Inspector, Bargarh R.I. Circle, Bargarh having its Office situated at Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tahssil and Dist. Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tahasil and Dist. Bargarh
..... ...... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.P.Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:- Sri S.K.Naik, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.05/10/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case ;-
The case of the Complainant is that he is a rightful owner of a Land having being a successor of his grand father and Mother vide Khata No-1469 and 1470 of Mouza Bargarh, and the records of the same is in the possession of the Record Room of the Opposite Parties, and that he has filed a mutation case in the office of the Opposite Party No.1(one) for correction of the record of right and to insert his name in place of the persons to whom he has succeeded by paying required amount of the court fees and the same case was transferred to the Opposite Party No.2(two) for doing the needful as per the law but in spite of his best effort the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not do the necessary job even after his service of summon to the other party and their being absent to appear before him, did not correct the column-ii of the aforesaid Khata in the name of the Complainant, which as per him amounts to deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant, to which he has also drawn notice of the Collector and the Sub-Collector but they did not take any steps for which the Complainant has to suffer both mentally and financially thus seeing no other alternative proffered to file the case in the Forum claiming thereby an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only towards compensation and for a direction to the concerned authorities to do the needful to correct the said record of right in his favor, And in support of his such claim has relied on some documents as follows.
The Mutation case No.1407 of 2016 & 1422 of 2016 and the written complain made to the Sub-Collector and Collector of the District .
Having gone through the complaint and on hearing the learned senior counsel of the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served upon the Opposite Parties, and on being summoned they appeared before the Forum and filed their version jointly, And the version of the Opposite Parties is a completely denial one to the case of the Complainant and also has stated in their versions that the same case of mutation have been disallowed by the concerned authorities and the very sum and substances of the version of the Opposite Parties is that the case is not maintainable in the present form in the Forum since the Complainant is not a consumer as per the prevailing provision of Law as the same being guided by the prescribed provision of survey and settlement and mutation manual, as such has claimed to dismiss the case. And in their support have filed a lot of documents .
Having gone through the Complaint, the version filed by the Opposite Parties and the documents available in the record and after careful scrutiny of the materials filed by the Opposite Parties we are of the view to adjudicate the case on the following point.
Whether the Complainant is a consumer and whether the case is maintainable in the Forum in the present form ?
Having gone through the entire materials available in the record and after careful consideration of the arguments placed by the learned senior counsel for the Complainant and the Government Pleader, it came to our Notice that the case in hand is a purely a Civil Dispute and a matter of declaration of record of right for which the careful scrutiny of the concerned documents and examination of the evidence to that effect is required, which is not within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum specially because for such complicated dispute, the Complainant ought to have knocked the door of the Appellate Authority or the Civil Court, furthermore with regards to the question of the Complainant is a consumer or not, in our prudent view in examining the provision of the Act the payment of such court fees as has been claimed by the Complainant does not entitle him for being a consumer from any corner of the provision of the Consumer Protection Act as the same Court fees does not amount to consideration amount for any service, rather the same fees is to adjudicate the matter irrespective of the result of the same, which is a judicial one and since the same is dealt with by a statutory body can not be interfered by this Forum as has been envisaged in Section (3) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 wherein it is emphasized that the provision is an addition to any law for the same being in force, but not in derogation to the same, hence our view to the issues in hand is a negative one and thus our consensus view is that the Complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum and as such the same is dismissed against the Opposite Parties being devoid of any merit
And the Complainant is at liberty to file the case in the proper Court of law , Hence the case against the opposite parties is dismissed and disposed off accordingly being pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e.on Dt.05/10/2018.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
