Tamil Nadu

Ariyalur

CC/241/2022

Kaligaperumal, Senthurai Thaluka, Ariyalur Dist - Complainant(s)

Versus

1)Thasildar, Thasildar office, Ariyalur. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

 Complaint taken on file: 24.11.2022

 Order delivered on: 10.02.2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ARIYALUR

PRESENT: Dr.V.Ramaraj M.L, Ph.D: President

Mr.N.Balu B.A, B.L: Member – I

Mrs.V.Lavanya B.A, B.L: Member-II

Consumer Complaint No. 241/2022

Friday, the tenth day of February, 2023

 

Kaliyaperumal (Aged 83),

S/o.Muniya Padayachi,

Senior Citizen,

37, South Street,

Asaveerankudikadu

Sendurai Tk, Ariyur Dt – 621 719                                        …                     Complainant    

 

Through his power agent,

M.G. Balasubramanian, Founder,

Tamilnadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust,

Ariyalur District – 621 715.                                                                                                                            

          -Vs-

The Tahsildar,

Taluk Office, Sendurai,

Ariyalur District – 621 714                                                  …                    Opposite Party

 

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Government Pleader Mr.T.A.Kathiravan

            The complainant has filed this case praying to direct the opposite party to render the service for which the complainant has paid the service charge of Rs.800/-, to sub divide of the properties of the complainant without delay, to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for the economic loss and mental agony caused to the complainant because of the deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party and to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expense and Rs.1,500/- per each hearing of this case.

ORDER

Pronounced by Mr.N.Balu: Member-I

Adopted by Dr.V.Ramaraj: President

  and Mrs.V.Lavanya: Member-II    

The facts of the complaint in brief:

01.       The complainant is a senior citizen, aged 83 years, and is a small agriculturist. He claims the priorities of senior citizens. The complainant purchased land of 38 cents in S.F No.57/20 from one Veeramuthu Padayachi son of Venkitachalam Padayachi Padayachi on 28-02-1983 through a registered sale deed in Document No: 316/1983. The said land had been lawfully purchased by   above Veeramuthu Padayachi from one Kathirvel Padayachi son of Ponnusamy Padayachi vide document No:1897/1973 dated 09.07.1973. The complainant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above land till date. The Revenue Department officials while computerizing the land details, have mistakenly added the name of one Valambal in the above S.F number and have sub -divided the above land into various sub-divisions such as 20A, 20B, 20C, … 20J. Hence, the complainant applied with parental documents and computerized registration details seeking subdivision as per the sale deed and to assign a separate patta to the above land for many years but no action has been taken so far. Hence, the complainant filed a civil suit on 12.06.2019 in O.S No.252/2019.

 

02.       The Revenue officials have orally stated that since the suit was pending they could not sub divide the land. Hence, the complainant left the suit for dismissed for default on 03-09-2021. No case is pending at present. The complainant, after 7 months from the date of disposal of the above suit, on 21.04.2022 applied to the opposite party seeking sub division of the land as per the new rules of the government by paying Rs.800/- in the bank account of the opposite party.   He applied through   online method, from the e-service centre, Taluk office, Sendurai by paying a service charge of Rs.200/-, no receipt was issued at the e-service centre but they issued a printed copy of the application form. The complainant submitted the printed application along with copies of the sale deed, parental document, topo sketch, chitta and encumbrance certificate to the opposite party. The opposite party received the application but neither issued any acknowledgement as per the Government orders nor sent any reply for the application.

 

03.       The complainant had rightly applied through online mode with all necessary documents and paid proper service charges for sub -division and submitted the application online and submitted its copy to the opposite party directly. They did not provide any acknowledgement, receipt or token for any petition submitted at the Tahsildar office in spite of the fact the Hon’ble High court has ordered in many cases that acknowledgement should be provided and has also ordered as to how it should be provided and based on that the Government of Tamilnadu has also issued Government orders. But still, the opposite party neither provided any acknowledgement nor took any step to sub- divide the property nor sent any reply to the complainant’s application till date. The opposite party having received the service charge of Rs.800/- (400+400), failing to render the service of sub -dividing the property amounts to deficiency in their service. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble High court of Madras has ordered in many cases that disciplinary action should be taken against those officials who have not surveyed the property within 30 days of receipt of service charge.

 

04.                Around 7 months have passed since the payment of the service charge on 21.04.2022, but the opposite party has not made the sub-division.   The opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Being a senior citizen at the age of 83, the complainant has approached all the means to get the service rendered but has failed. Hence, the complainant has approached this commission believing that only this commission is the appropriate forum that can make the opposite party do their lawful duty and render the service to the complainant.

 

05.         The complainant prays to direct the opposite party to render the service for which the complainant has paid the service charge of Rs.800/-, to sub -divide the properties of the complainant without delay, to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for the economic loss and mental agony caused to the complainant because of the deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party and to direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as litigation expense and Rs.1,500/- per each hearing of this case.

 

 The facts of Written Versions of the Opposite Party in brief:

06.          The complainant has executed an unregistered power of Attorney deed in favour of Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniyan, who in turn has filed this complaint on behalf of the complainant Mr. Kaliyaperumal in the capacity of power agent. The power agent, who claims to have trust, has not even filed a copy of the registered deed of organisation. There is no pleading in the complaint that Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniyan is the agent. Hence, Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniyan has no locus standi to file this complaint.

 

 07.               In fact, the complainant is not the owner of the land. If the UDR authorities did not issue patta in favour of the complainant, then he should go for appeal before the R.D.O (Revenue Divisional Officer) and not before the opposite party. Regarding the ownership of property, the complainant had filed a civil suit before the District Munsif cum Magistrate court, Sendurai in O.S No.252/2019. The complainant has stated in the complaint that the above suit was dismissed for default and no case is pending at present. But the fact is that the complainant has filed a restoration petition which is numbered as I.A.No.1/2022 and is still pending enquiry. The complainant has suppressed this important material fact and has filed the complaint.

08.          The opposite party has taken action against the petition of the complainant dated 24.05.2022. The opposite party has issued a letter dated 21.12.2022 to the complainant in this regard. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service. The complainant is not at all a consumer and is not entitled to seek any remedy under the consumer protection act. The complaint has been filed with the intention to cause trouble to the opposite party, who is a public servant from executing their lawful duty. The opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint as there is no merit in the complaint and may pass an order to pay the cost.

 

09.  Issues:

 

             On perusal of facts in the complaint, his documents, written version of the first opposite party and exploring the status of agent, who is mentioned in the complaint, this commission framed the following issues.

 

(01)     Whether self claiming agent has the locus standi in this complaint?. 

 

(02)     Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service?

 

(03)     If the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service, whether the complainant be compensated? If yes how much should be paid?

 

(04)     Whether any other remedies are essential? And whether the cost of the litigation is to be imposed on the parties?

 

Issue No.1

10.       Mr. Kaliyaperumal is named as the complainant in the complaint. Mr. M.G.  Balasubramanian, Founder, Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust has been mentioned as a power agent in short title and long title. In the pleadings of the complaint nowhere was stated that the complainant Mr. Kaliyaperumal appointed a power agent.  The opposite party has raised this question in their written version.  Whether M.G.  Balasubramanian is power agent under a deed of power of attorney? Or representing in the cadre of voluntary consumer associations?  Because, his seal shows as Founder, Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust.  There is no pleading to answer this question in the complaint.  Hence, this commission explored the answer on available records.

 

11.       The complainant has marked an unregistered deed of under taking as exhibit A-1, Which was executed by the complainant. This is not legally valid as power of attorney. In this circumstance, M.G. Balasubramaniyan cannot act as an agent for him in this case.  Hence, it is decided that M.G.  Balasubramanian is not a power agent under a deed of power of attorney. 

 

12.       In this circumstance, this commission made an analysis to find out whether he represented in the cadre of voluntary consumer associations as prescribed in section 12(b)   of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The seal of the agent is described as a Trust and exhibit B-1 shows that agent is the founder of the said Trust. According to the citation submitted by the first opposite party in Consumer Complaint Nos. 560 of 2014 & 226, 227, 228, 229, 245, 954, 474, 475, 677, 991, 992, 1226 of 2015 & 132, 133, 160, 679, 792, 796, 797, 861, 968, 1005, 1006, 1078, 1163, 1466, 1198, 1283, 1372, 1395, 1398, 1401, 1411, 1412, 1502, 1619, 1669, 1672, 1681, 1683, 1697, 1700, 1774 of 2016 with IA Nos. 6376 & 11607 /2016,  National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission decided that “A Trust cannot be said to be a Voluntary Consumer Association within the meaning of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act” (05.05.2017).  It may be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has decided that it is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not be a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008 on March 7, 2017. Hence, it is decided that M.G.  Balasubramanian can’t represent in the cadre of voluntary consumer associations as prescribed in section 12(b)   of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

13.  Therefore, this commission has decided that the above said M.G.  Balasubramanian has no locus standi to file the complaint or represent on behalf of the complainant Mr. Kaliyaperumal.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.

 

Issue No.2

14.       It is true that the complainant filed an application for the patta sub- division and paid the fee for the same. In his application, he requested the opposite party to rectify the error made during the computerization of revenue records.  In the written version, the opposite party has stated that the complainant is not the owner of the land, and if any discrepancies in the patta issued by the Thasildar, he should file an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer.  It is true that Revenue Standing Orders provided such appellate authority.    The complainant has to approach the appellate authority for the remedy.

 

15.       The complainant stated in the complaint that , he filed a civil suit before the District Munsif cum Magistrate court, Sendurai in O.S No.252/2019.The Revenue officials have orally stated that since the suit was pending they could not sub divide the land. As per the complaint, the complainant left the suit for dismiss for default on 03-09-2021 and no case is pending at present.  But, the opposite party has proved that the above fact is wrong through Exhibit B-3.  This exhibit disclosed the following facts: the complainant filed the petition dated 20-09-2021 with affidavit for the restoration the above suit.  In the said affidavit, complainant affirmed that due to illness he was unable to attend the hearing of the above suit, hence the suit was dismissed on 03-09-2021.  The restoration petition was pending as IA No 01/2021 at the time of filing this complaint.  Hence, this commission found that the complainant suppressed these facts in the complaint as above, but has lied that that the suit was dismissed for default.

 

16.       Exhibit B-2 is a series of documents filed by the opposite party.  It shows that the opposite party has taken action against the applications, which are mentioned in the complaint. In these circumstances, this commission has decided that the complaint is not proved and it is evident that the first opposite party has not committed any deficiency.

17.  Further, it is essential to note Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai declared that “even if the complainant has paid necessary fee for surveying and issuing patta for the land the same will not give rise to the cause of action to bring the matter within an ambit of the relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party. Even assuming that if the title is clear and sufficient fees are paid, when the revenue authorities have not come forward to survey the land and issue patta, the complainant has to approach the appropriate legal forum in accordance with the law applicable to it by initiating a litigation impleading the concerned government official as a party but not before this consumer commission, Further, we are of the view that the litigation where the land dispute is involved can never be subject matter of the consumer commission” in F.A.No. 208/2018 in State Consumer Disbutes Redressal Commission, Chennai, against the order passed in c.c. no.21/2017 dated 24/08/207 on the file of the District commission Ariyalur on 26^{th day} of October 2021.  As matter of fact, the agent of this complaint is a party in the above-said first appeal..

Issue No.3

18.       Issue number two is answered as negative to the complainant; he is not eligible for compensation as he prayed.

Issue No.4

19.       This commission explored whether any other remedies are essential.  As per the citations noted above, Mr. M.G.Balasubramaniyan has no right to represent on behalf of the consumers as a representative of Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust before this commission and office of the government as a voluntary consumer association in government..

 

20.       The complaint is unwanted and trouble to the public servants as explained above, which was filed by the so-called agent. Without locus standi, the self-claiming agent Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniyan filed this complaint, which led the trouble and for the   opposite

 

 

parties. Filing a complaint without locus standi is unacceptable. Therefore, this commission has decided that the self-claiming agent has to pay Rs. 10,000/-   as cost of the litigation under section 39 (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to the first opposite party within four weeks of the receipt of this order.

 

As a result, this commission passes the following

ORDER

1.         The Complaint is dismissed as not proved and not maintainable under the law.

 

2.         The self-claiming agent Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniyan has to pay Rs. 10,000/-   as cost of the litigation under section 39 (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to the first opposite party within four weeks of the receipt of this order.

 

3.         As other remedies, Mr. M.G.Balasubramaniyan has no right to represent on behalf of the consumers as a representative of Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust before this commission and office of the government as a voluntary consumer association in government as per the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008 and Order in   Consumer Complaint Nos. 560 of 2014 & 226, 227, 228, 229, 245, 954, 474, 475, 677, 991, 992, 1226 of 2015 & 132, 133, 160, 679, 792, 796, 797, 861, 968, 1005, 1006, 1078, 1163, 1466, 1198, 1283, 1372, 1395, 1398, 1401, 1411, 1412, 1502, 1619, 1669, 1672, 1681, 1683, 1697, 1700, 1774 of 2016 with IA Nos. 6376 & 11607 /2016,  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

            Order typed by Member I, Corrected by Steno and Pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this the 10^th day of February 2023.

 

  MEMBER I                                            MEMBER II                                                PRESIDENT

Exhibits marked by the complainant:

Ex.No.	Date	Description of the Document	Remarks
A-1	10.11.2022	Unregistered Power of Attorney deed issued by the complainant in favour of the Agent	Original
A-2	09.07.1973	Sale deed by Kathirvel Padayachi in favour of Veeramuthu Padayaci	Certified Xerox copy
A-3	28.02.1983	Sale deed by Veeramuthu Padayachi in favour of the complainant	Certified Xerox copy
A-4	21.04.2022	Application given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party and E-Challan	Xerox copy
A-5	21.04.2022	Application given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party and E-Challan	Xerox copy
A-6	21.04.2022	Application given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party and	Xerox copy
A-7	-	Encumbrance Certificate	Xerox copy

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

S.No	Date	Description of Documents	Remarks
B-1	-	Colour Photocopy of the name board of the complainant’s power agent’s trust	Colour photocopy
B-2	-	Endorsement of NKs 43/22 proceedings dated 21.12.2022	Xerox copy
B-3	-	Status of the case in OS252 of 2019	Print out and xerox

Witness examined by the complainant: Kaliyaperumal (Complainant)

Witness examined by the Opposite Party: Packiam Victoria (Tahsildar, Sendurai)

 

  N. BALU                                               V.LAVANYA                                               V.RAMARAJ   

  MEMBER I                                            MEMBER II                                                PRESIDENT