Tamil Nadu

Ariyalur

CC/240/2022

T.Ganesan,Senthurai Thaluk, Ariyalur. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1)Varuvai Vattachiyar, Senthurai-621714. 2)District Collector, Snthurai -621714, Ariyalur. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

                                                                                                Date of filing: 22/12/2022.

                                                                                                Date of order: 10/02/2023.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ARIYALUR

PRESENT

                                     THIRU. DR. V. RAMARAJ.  M.L.,Ph D.,           PRESIDENT

                                     THIRU.N. BALU        B.A., B.L.,                        MEMBER I

                                     TMT.V. LAVANYA    B.A., B.L.,                         MEMBER II

C.C.NO.240/2022.

Friday,   10^th day of February 2023.

 

D. Ganesan, Aged 68 years,

S/o. Thangavel, (Ex-Army)(Senior Citizen),

Sannasinallur-Post, 621 730,

Sendurai – Taluk,

Ariyalur District.                                                                                -  Complainant

 

M.G. Balasubramanian

Founder, Tamilnadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust,

Kizhapazhavur -621 707,

Ariyalur District.                                                                                - Agent

                                                                                                Vs

1. The Thasildar,

 Thasildar office, Sendurai Taluk,

Sendurai- 621714.

 

2. District Collector

Ariyalur District - 621 704.                                                              - Opposite Parties.

 

1. Agent of the Complainant -         Mr. M.G. Balasubramanian

                                                            Founder,  Tamilnadu

                                                            Consumer Rights Protection Trust.

2. Counsel for the 1^st & 2^nd  

    Opposite Parties               -           Mr. T.A.Kathiravan B.A.B.L

                                                            Government Pleader, Ariyalur.

            This complaint having come for final hearing before us on 09/02/2023 and upon perusing the Complaint, Proof Affidavit, documents and oral arguments of the complainant and Written version, Proof Affidavit, Documents and arguments of the Opposite Parties, this commission passed the following:-

                                                                        ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. V.LAVANYA B.A, B.L., MEMBER II

ADOPTED BY Dr.V.RAMARAJ M.L., Ph.D., PRESIDENT & Mr. N.BALU B.A, B.L. MEMBER

 

1.         The Complaint is filed U/S 35(1)(b) and U/S 36(3), 38 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, directing the Opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony for deficiency of services, directing to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- for cost, directing the Opposite Parties to measure survey the land as per the petition dated 31/12/2021.

 

The facts of the complaint in brief:

 

2.         The Complainant stated that his father was a soldier in the Indian Army before independence and died. His mother got the patta for a house site, an extent of 57 square meters in survey number 22-12-2022 from the Tahsildar, Sendurai as per the order of the district collector. But, the site was not shown after measuring. Adjacent house site owner Mrs. Arulmozhi is attempting to capture the said house site.

 

3.       The Complainant further stated that the complainant paid Rs. 1,200/- for surveying the above-said house site as a service fee and filed the application before the first opposite party.  But, the first opposite party has not issued acknowledgment or receipt for the same.  The first opposite party has not taken any action against the application.  Many times, the complainant met the second opposite party in this regard, but no action was taken. Again, the complainant paid Rs 400/- and submitted an application to the first opposite party.  The first opposite party instructed the complaint to pay Rs 800/- again for the survey. Again, the complainant paid Rs 800/- and submitted an application to the first opposite party. No acknowledgment or receipt was given by the opposite party for the same. 

 

4.         The Complainant further stated that the complainant paid the service charge, hence, he is the consumer of the opposite party.  The opposite parties not provided the service for the fee received within the stipulated period.  Thus, they have committed the deficiency in the service.  Due to the act of opposite parties, the complainant suffered from mental agony and economic loss. Hence, this complaint was filed for necessary relief as prayed.

 

The facts of Written Versions of the 1^st Opposite Party (adopted by the second opposite party) in brief:

 

5.         The opposite parties stated that the Complaint is not Maintainable under Law or on facts. It is submitted that the 1^st Opposite Party assigned a house site under housing scheme development to one Mrs. Gnanambal on 22/12/2021 for a house site, which is an extent of 57 square meters at sannasinallur Village of Sendurai Taluk. As per the condition mentioned in the assignment document, the assignment holder has to construct the house within 6 months from the date of assignment, but the Complainant mother did not construct the house. Hence due to non – compliance with the conditions, she lost her right to this assignment.

 

6.         The opposite parties further stated that the site was allotted by the government without any sale price, if there is any difficulty in the possession of the house site, the assignee has to represent herself before the RDO. It is not necessary to pay fee for fixation of boundaries without approaching the RDO. When there is no payment required to pay the Government then the Complainant does not come within the ambit of “Consumer.”

 

7.         The opposite parties further stated that in respect of the house site , Mrs. Gnanambal executed an Unregistered General Power of Attorney to her son Mr. Ganesan. In turn the said Ganesan has executed an unregistered General Power of Attorney to Mr. M.G. Balasubramania,n who has filed this complaint on behalf of Ganesan . But the Power Agent has no locus standi to file this case. To prove the genuinely the Power Agent has not filed the Registered Trust Deed of his Organization.

 

8.         The opposite parties further stated that the Complainant is not the owner of the house site; he has to file the complaint in a representing capacity, hence the complaint is not admissible in law. A copy of the petition dated 31/12/2021 submitted along with the Complainant without any proof of submission. The Previous officer has taken necessary action against the petition dated 16/05/2022 which is submitted along with the complaint. The Complainant never turned up for the Survey of the house site and a letter dated 03/12/2022 was issued to the assignee of the house site in this regard.

 

9.         The opposite parties further stated that   they  have not committed any deficiency of service and the Complainant is not a Consumer of Opposite Parties, he is not entitled to seek remedy under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Complainant in order to harass the Opposite Parties and causing trouble to the Public Servants has filed this vexatious complaint which is liable to be dismissed. The District Collector has been added as a 2^nd Opposite Party when there is no allegation against them, Therefore the complaint has to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

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. D. Ganesan is named as the complainant in the complaint. Mr. M.G.  Balasubramanian, Founder, Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust has been mentioned as an agent in short title and long title. In the pleadings of the complaint nowhere was stated that the complainant Mr. D. Ganesan appointed an agent.  The first opposite party has raised this question in his written version. 

 

11.       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.

12.       The power of Attorney deed executed by the complainant Ganeshen is not marked as an exhibit of the complainant side. 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. 

 

13.       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. 

 

14.  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. Ganeshen.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.

 

 

 

Issue No.2

15.       The opposite parties exhibit B-2 is a set of proceedings in relation to the land survey of the complainant.  In this series, the affidavit of the complainant Ganeshen, dated 05-11-2022, is a very important one.  In this affidavit, he stated that the surveyor came to the house site for the survey on 05-011-2022, and there was an environment for the law and order issue.  Hence, he requested the surveyors to postpone the survey.  It is proof for the action taken by the opposite parties.  This exhibit shows that action taken by the opposite parties.  Therefore, this commission has decided that the complaint is not proved and it is evident that the first opposite party has not committed any deficiency in the service.

 

16.  Further, Exhibits A-3 and A-5 are copies of the petitions addressed to the second opposite party.  But there is no proof for the submission.  The second opposite party is unnecessary party in this case.  Therefore, this commission has decided that the complaint against the second opposite party is dismissed.

 

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

 

   N. BALU                                              V.LAVANYA                                               V.RAMARAJ   

  MEMBER I                                            MEMBER II                                                PRESIDENT

 

Complainant’s Side Exhibits

S.No.	Date	Description	Remarks
Ex.A1	22-12-2021	Proceeding of the Thasildar	Xerox
Ex A2	22-12-2021	House sit assignment form	Xerox
Ex.A3	27-12-2021	Petition addressed to the second opposite party	Xerox
Ex.A4	31-12-2021	Petition addressed to the first opposite party along with fee challan	Xerox
Ex.A5	16-05-2022	Petition addressed to the second opposite party	Xerox
Ex.A6	19-05-2022	Letter written by the Assistant Director, Land survey	Xerox
Ex.A7	09-09-2022	GPA executed by the complainant’s mother	Original

1^st Opposite Parties Side Exhibits

S.No.	Date	Description	Remarks
Ex.B1		Complainant Trust Notice Board.	Colour Printed  Photo Copy
ExB2	08/12/2022	Endorsement of N.KA.S. 43/22 proceedings.	Printed copy

 

Complainant side Witness;

Mr. M.G. Balasubramanian, Agent of the Complainant

1^st Opposite Party side witness:-

Packiam Victoria, Sendurai Taluk Thasildar

2^nd Opposite party side witness:-

Nil

 

 

   N. BALU                                                V.LAVANYA                                              V.RAMARAJ   

  MEMBER I                                            MEMBER II                                                PRESIDENT