IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/07/2010
Date of Filing: 07/01/2010 Date of Final Order: 19/09/2018
Complainant: Pratap Kumar Singha,
S/O Subal Chandra Singha,
Of Sahajadpur, P.O. & P.S. Raghunathganj
Dist-Murshidabad
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1) A.D.S.R. Jangipur,
P.S. Raghunathganj,
Dist.-Murshidabad
2) District Sub-Registrat-II,
Berhampore,
Murshidabad
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Debasish Nag
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Sunil Kumar Rudra
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
ASISH KUMAR SENAPATI , PRESIDING MEMBER.
This is a complaint under section12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
One Pratap Kumar Singha (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Jangipore and the District Sub-Registrar-II, Berhampore (here in after referred to as the OPs) alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:-
The Complainant decided to purchase a landed property from one Aktara Begum on payment of advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and accordingly a Registered deed of agreement for sale was executed on 25.03.09. The Complainant paid requisite stamp duty and as per terms of agreement dt 25.03.09, the balance consideration amount was payable by 25th May, 2009 for execution of the sale deed in favor of the Complainant by Aktara Begum. The Complainant and Aktara Begum appeared before the OP No.2 for registration of the sale deed on 25.05.09 but the A.D.S.R opined that the deed was to be submitted before the A.D.S.R Jangipur for registration. The Request of the Complainant for registration of the document was turned down by the OP No.2 and it was the last date for execution of the sale deed as per agreement for sale. On 26.05.09, the Complainant complied all formalities but Aktara Begum remained absent. Aktara Begum expressed that she was not bound to execute the deed as the last date as per agreement for sale was over. The Complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- as advance to Aktara Begum and spent a lot of money for purchase a stamp paper and for registration of the agreement for sale. Due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the Complainant suffered a great loss. The Complainant prayed for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation against the OPs.
The OP No.1 and 2 put their appearance and filed written version on 16.04.10 inter alia denying the material allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the cause of action does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It is the specific case of the OPs that no such deed was presented for registration before the District Sub-Registrar –II, Berhampore. Under the present system of registration (computerized) of documents adopted by the department of the registration and the stamp revenue, Govt. of West Bengal, finally register all agreement for sale. This can only be done in the office of the registration in which original deed is registered. Since agreement for sale was registered in the office of the Additional District Sub-Registrar Jangipur, the deed of sale was to be finally registered in that office only. On enquiry it is learnt that no such deed was presented for registration at the office of the District Sub-Registrar-II Berhampore. Accordingly question of refusal on the part of the OP No.2 does not arise. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Is the Complaint maintainable ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the above points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OPs for registration of a document for consideration. It is argued that the Complainant and his vendor presented the deed of sale on 25.05.2009 before the District Sub-Registrar II (OP No.2) for registration but the same was not registered due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is urged that the Complainant agreed to pay the registration fees and other fees for registration of the document but the document was not registered, causing a great loss and harassment. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant refers a decision passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1144 of 2004 (the Joint Sub-Registrar VS TMT Maragathan) on 05.03.07 where in the Hon’ble National Commission found deficiency in service of the Joint Sub-Registrar for issuing erroneous and effective encumbrance certificate. It is contended that there is provision for registration of documents manually as per Rule 131 of the West Bengal Registration Rules, 1962. He contends that the Complainant was compelled to cross over a litigation for Specific Performance of contract for registration of the document causing a great loss due to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that the Complainant is not a consumer under the OPs and no consumer case is maintainable against the OPs. He argues that the deed of sale was presented before the OP No.2 on 25.05.09 which was continuation of a deed of agreement executed by the Complainant and his vendor on 25.03.09 at ADSR, Jangipur, Murshidabad. He further argues that the system of E-Nathikaran was introduced in Murshidabad with effect from 13.05.15 and before that day it was not possible to go through the documents of other Sub-Divisions and the OP No.2 had no scope to verify the valuation etc. of Jangipore Sub-Division on 25.05.09. It is further urged that the OPs are protected under section 86 of the Registration Act. He draws our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed on 08.12.95 in S.P. Goyel VS Collector of Stamps, Delhi, reported in 1996 AIR, 839. It is argued that the OPs performed from quasi judicial functions at the time of registration of any document and so they are not liable for any act done by them in good faith. It is further urged that section 86 of the Registration Act runs thus “Registering officer not liable for thing bona fide done or refused in his official capacity. No registering officer shall be liable to any suit, claim or demand by reason of anything in good faith done or refused in his official capacity.’’ It is urged that the OPs acted properly in good faith in their official capacity by not registering the document on 25.05.09 and directed the Complainant to submit the document in the ADSR, Jangipur office. It is further contended that the decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is not at all applicable for the present case as the facts and circumstances of the present case are not similar to the case referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. He submits that in the referred case the Joint Sub-Registrar issued a defective encumbrance certificate on receipt of requisite fees and so the case has no bearing with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in S.P. Goyel’s case.
Admittedly, the Complainant and his vendor executed an agreement for sale dated 25.03.09 and the deed was registered at the office of the ADSR, Jangipur and it was agreed in the agreement for sale that the sale deed would be executed by 25.05.09. It is also the case of the Complainant that the proposed sale deed was presented before the OP No.2 on 25.05.09 for registration and the deed was not registered and a direction was given “tobe submitted in the ADSR, Jangipore office”. The term ‘Consumer’ has been defined under section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act,1986. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) runs as follows: “Consumer means any person who “hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.”
It is the case of the Complainant that he hires the services of the OPs for consideration and the Complainant has asserted that the registration fee and other fees is the consideration for services. According to section 86 of the Registration Act,
“ No registration officer is liable for thing bona fide done or refused in his official capacity ”. The Complainant intended to pay registration fees for his registration, copying of the document (sale deed) etc. The registering authority is duty bound to act in accordance with rules and regulations. Registration of documents is a quasi judicial function and it is not an administrative function.The fees paid or intended to be paid for registration cannot be termed as consideration for service. With due regard to the decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for both sides, we have placed our reliance on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.P. Goyel’s case. We think that the decision passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1444 of 2004 dated 05.03.07 is not at all applicable in the present case. In our considered opinion the Complainant has failed to establish that he hired the services of the OPs for consideration. Therefore, it is held that the Complainant is not a consumer in terms of section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act,1986.
On a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find valid substance in the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the OPs to the effect that as there was no scope to know the valuation of the so called sale deed on 25.05.09 as the agreement for sale was registered on 25.03.09 at the office of the ADSR, Jangipur and e-Nathikaran was started in Murshidabad, District with effect from 13.05.2015. The OP No. 2 directed the Complainant to submit the document for registration in the ADSR, Jangipur office.
Whether the direction of the OP No.2 dated 25.05.09 was right or wrong cannot be decided by this Forum as the Complainant has failed to establish him as a consumer.
The OPs are also protected U/S 86 of the Registration Actas the Complainant has failed to establish any malafide intention by giving direction to submit the document before the ADSR, Jangipurdated 25.05.09.Therefore, the Complainant is not maintainable.The Complainant has failed to establish any consumer dispute between the Complainant and the OPs. Hence, we are of the view that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 07.01.10 and admitted on11.02.10 . The OPs contested the case by filing W.V. on 09.04.10. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case be and the same is here by dismissed on contest against the OPs without any order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
