West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/140/2015

Sri Swapan Kr. Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Additional District Sub-register - Opp.Party(s)

11 May 2016

ORDER

 

                                                           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

   

Complaint Case No.140/2015

                                                       

1. Sri Swapan Kr. Sahoo,

2. Smt. Shilabati Sahoo…………………..….……Complainants.

Versus

 

1. Additional District Sub-Registrar, Paschim Medinipur;

2. District Registrar, Paschim Medinipur........…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr. Pulakananda Mondal, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Sukumar Parya, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -11/05 /2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Briefly stated, the case of the complainants, is as follows:-

                        Complainants purchased a flat from the promoter after taking financial loan from LICHFL and accordingly the vendor executed a sale deed being no.5375 of 2014 on 30/12/2014 and the complainant paid stamp duty of Rs.1,63,320/- as required for registration fees.  After payment of stamp duty and registration fees, the sale deed was registered on the same day i.e. on 30/12/2014.  After receiving the original sale deed, the complainants went to the office of LICHFL and after going through the sale deed, the LICHFL found that at the time of preparation of the certificate of payment of fees etc. by the opposite party no.1, the market value of the property was wrongly written as

                                                                                                        Contd………………P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

Rs.17,42,400/- and required stamp duty was wrongly written as Rs.1,04,564/- in the sale deed.  Actually the market price of the flat should be written as Rs.27,21,600/ in place of Rs.17,42,400/- and the stamp duty should be written as Rs.1,04,564/-.  Thereafter, the complainants went to office of the opposite party with a view to rectify the said defects but the opposite parties did not correct the defects made by them.  The complainants brought the said fact to the notice of any ADSR and District Registrar on 06/01/2015 and also requested them to correct the mistake.  The complainants also made a complaint before them through their Ld. Advocate Sri Swapan Kumar Bhattacharjee on 12/06/2015 and in response to that letter, opposite party no.2 gave a reply dated 17/06/2015 thereby admitting their mistake.  In spite of that, the said mistake has not been corrected as yet by the opposite parties and therefore LICHFL refused to accept the deed for which the complainants are facing lot of difficulties.  Hence this complaint, praying for directing the opposite parties no.1 & 2 to rectify the said defects in the sale deed and for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

                  Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainants, it is the specific case of the  opposite parties that complainants are not  consumer under the C.P. Act, that Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamp Revenue, West Bengal are necessary parties in this case, that the present complaint is not maintainable, that one Ananda Gopal Maity  presented the alleged deed as attorney of the Developer of “Suhasini Builders” for registration on 30/12/2014 and as such the present complainants have no locus standi to file this case before this Forum.  The mistake regarding the valuation of the deed and stamp duty was written due to wrong presentation of assessment slip by the parties.  After receiving summons of this case on 05/01/2016, a prayer has been sent by the opposite parties to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration at Kolkata through e-mail for necessary correction regarding the above matter. It is specifically stated that the complainants have no locus standi to file this complaint as the alleged vendors/sellers of the deed did not raise any objection against that clerical mistake and there is no relationship between the opposite parties and the complainants as trader and customer and as such, the present complaint is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.  

Points for decision

1. Is the present case  maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to try this case ?

3. Are the complainants entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                                                                                                         Contd………………P/3

 

 

 

                                    

                                                            ( 3 )

 

Decision with reasons

            For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration. 

           At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case neither the complainants nor the opposite parties have adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary.

           Admittedly, the value of the flat in question is Rs.27,21,600/- and the stamp duty paid for registration is Rs.1,63,300/-. For alleged deficiency in service, the complainants have prayed for compensation of Rs,1,00,000/- against the opposite parties. It is the settled law that the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to any goods would include the value of the property as well as compensation demanded in the complaint.  Since admittedly the value of the property in question is Rs.27,21,600/- and the relief claimed for compensation is Rs.1,00,000/-,  so the total value of the property in question and the relief claimed for deficiency in service exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.20,00,000/- of this Forum and therefore this forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present case and it is therefore held that the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                         that the complaint case no.140/2015  is  dismissed on contest for want of pecuniary jurisdiction but in the  circumstances  we make no order to cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                                  Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                             Sd/-

                             President                                     Member                                         President

                                                                                                                                   District Forum

                                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur