Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/63/2014

Kota ramanaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

APON NLR TAL Represented by its proprietor Mee seva, - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Date of Filing     :27-08-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:31-08-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the  31^st  day of  August, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                            

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.63/2014

 

Kota Ramanaiah, S/o.Ayyappa Setty,

Hindu, Aged about 69 years,

Chinnapadugupadu Village,

Kovur Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                             ..… Complainant          

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	APON NLR TAL, Represented by it’s Proprietor, Mee-Seva, Satram Street, Kovur (Mandal), S.P.S.R.Nellore District.
2.	The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar’s Officer, Kovur, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                                 ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 24-08-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                                                                      complainant appeared in person and  Sri M. Raveendra, advocate for the opposite party No.1 and Sri K. Nagarathnam Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader for the opposite party No.2  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties  jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.445/- which was paid by the complainant towards fee, Rs.70,000/- towards  damages for mental  suffering, strain suffered by the complainant and costs.

 

            2.         The brief averments of the complainant are that the petitioner made an application dated 22-03-2014 to the 1^st opposite party / respondent for getting encumberance certificate in relation to the property of registered transaction since 01-01-1985 till 21-03-2014 for a period of 29 years after paying fees of Rs.225/-.  The 1^st respondent supplied the said encumberance certificate on getting the same  from the 2^nd respondent wherein it is stated that “Nil” encumberances.  Again the complainant applied for E.C. in relation to the same property after payment of Rs.220/- and he obtained the E.C. issued by 1^st respondent in which it was shown as registered mortgage transaction was done on 08-05-1986 executed by Shaik Khajamia in favour of  Vellepu  Chinnamma and that mortgage was registered at Kovur Sub Registrar Office.  Due to the negligence attitude of  both the respondents, the complainant paid twice for getting the E.C.   Since, the 1^st transaction not reflecting  the  registered transaction, the complainant was forced to apply 2^nd E.C.  and thereby they are jointly and severally liable for the consequences.  Hence, the complainant seeking direction to return the fees and also compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards damages for mental agony. 

 

3.         On the other hand, the 1^st respondent resisted the complaint and admitted that  complainant paid twice  towards fee  for the supply of E.Cs.  But denied  that the 2^nd application was forced to  apply to obtain E.C.  1^st respondent further contended that  he is only agent and his duty  has to receive the  applications alongwith necessary fees for sending the same to Sub-Registrar Office, Kovur for getting E.C. and  he was nothing to do  with the entries made by the registration department and he is  not liable to pay any amount and the claim of Rs.70,000/- is highly excessive.  Since, the complainant obtained E.Cs. he is not entitled  to claim E.C. charges.  Further, he is not a Consumer within the meaning of Act and prays to dismiss the complaint  with exemplary costs. 

 

            4.         On behalf of  the complainant, chief affidavit of the complainant is filed and documents Exs.A1 to A6 marked.  On behalf of the opposite parties, evidence on affidavit not filed inspite of several adjournments granted.  Written Arguments filed by the complainant in person. Hence, the case is proceeded with on merits.  Perused  material papers on record. 

 

            5.         The point for determination would be for consideration is :

 

1. Whether there  is negligence on the part of the opposite parties, if so whether the complainant is entitled  for the relief as prayed for.

 

2)          To what result?      

 

            6.         POINT No.1:  The grievance of the complainant is that  in respect of the same property, he applied for issue of E.C. on two occasions.  Once, on 22-03-2014 for a period of 29 years from 01-01-1985 till 21-03-2014.  The 1^st E.C. according to the complainant showed that there was no encumberances over the property described in the application dated  22-03-2014.  He again applied for E.C. for the 2^nd time for the same period and the E.C. issued on 2^nd occasion showed that there was a transaction of mortgage on 08-05-1986  executed by Shaik Khaja Mia in favour of Velupu Chinnamma.  Thus, according to the complainant  there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and therefore he  claimed for Rs.445/-  being the charges paid  on two occasions for the issue of  E.C.   From the records, we find only the copy of the application dated 22-03-2014, which revealed from the said copy of application the property in respect of which the E.C. sought  was in respect of House No.1-260 in Survey No.13/Bandaru Manyam in respect of land  measuring  1080 sq.feets with area of construction of 620 sq.feet.  The complainant for reasons better known has not chosen to file the copy of application dated 26-03-2014 in application No.383962.  The 2^nd E.C. dated 26-03-2014 mentions the particulars of property in respect of which E.C.  is applied as follows:

            7.         Block 1-0 House No.1-0 with boundaries from the two E.Cs. it is clear that  different house  Nos. are mentioned  while applying for E.C. the application                   dated 22-03-2014, mentions door No.as 00.  It does not contain the block number.  Therefore it is clear in the applications dated 22-03-2014 and 26-03-2014 different door Nos. are furnished  while  in the application dated 22-03-2014 we find survey number 13, we do not find survey number in the 2^nd application dated 26-03-2014.  The extent of the properties mentioned in both the applications are totally different.  In the application date 22-03-2014, the extent of the property is mentioned as 1080 squire feet with built in area as 620 sq. feet with patta No. 1889.  The 2^nd E.C. is in respect of 184 yards with built in area 864 sq.feet.  It is  but natural  when  there is difference between the properties in respect of the E.Cs. are sought  there is likely to be furnishing different particulars of E.C. over the properties.  The complainant suppressed the filing of the application dated 26-03-2014 solely with the view to prevent the truth from the coming to light.   From the above discussion it is very much clear that there was no negligency on the part of opposite parties  when the E.Cs. are applied  furnishing the particulars of property with different door Nos. and the extent of property  there is likely to be difference in the E.C.  with regard to the transactions in relation to the said property under no stretch of imagination it can be said that  there was negligency on the part of the opposite parties.

 

            8.         Assuming for a moment that there was negligency, the same does  not amount to deficiency in service.  It is not the version of the complainant that he intended to enter into any transaction in relation to the said property and because of the 1^st E.C.  not containing  any transaction in relation to the said property  he parted  with any huge amount by entering into any transactions of sale in respect of the said property.   As per his own version, he spent an amount of Rs.445/- for obtaining both the E.Cs. when such is the situation it is not known how the  complainant suffered mental agony and strain.  It is not the case of the complainant that  he was  put to any loss of finance due to alleged misleading of E.Cs.  issued by the O.Ps.  This is classic example how persons resort to  making ill founded claims for a direction to the O.Ps. for payment of Rs.70,000/- as compensation, the claim is certainly ill-founded and the amount of damages  claimed  is excessive and exorbitant.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled  for any damages as claimed in the  complaint.  Further since he obtained two E.Cs. from the opposite parties, he is not entitled to refund  the fees of Rs.445/-  as claimed. 

            This Forum is not convinced with the contention of the 1^st opposite party that the complainant is not a Consumer  within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  By virtue of payment of fees  for applying  E.Cs. in the 1^st opposite party centre, the complainant has to be treated as  Consumer  and the complainant is entitled  to approach this Forum.  The contention of 1^st opposite party on the aspect of maintainability is unsustainable.

 9.        Hence, there are no merits in the complaint and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost. 

 

            10.       POINT No.2:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs in the circumstances of the case.

 

           Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 31^st  day of  August, 2015.

 

                  Sd/-                                                                                                 Sd/-             

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

02-06-2015

Sri Kota Ramanaiah,S/o.Ayyappa Setty,Chinnapadugupadu Village, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

-Nil-

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.A1  -	22-03-2014	Mee Seva App.No.ECM038014955, Encumberance Certificate in favour of complainant issued by Meeseva on 22-03-2014 and photocopy of Statement of Encumbrance on Property dated 26-03-2014 in favour of complainant issued by  Registration and Stamps  Department.
Ex.A2  -	09-04-2014	Legal notice from complainant’s advocate  to the opposite parties.
Ex.A3  -	10-04-2014	Two registered post receipts addressed to the opposite parties.
Ex.A4  -	22-05-2014	Acknowledgement  received from the Post-Master-GR -1, Kovur (NL) SO 524 137.
Ex.A5  -	22-03-2014	Encumbrance Receipt   in Application No.ECM038014955 in favour of complainant issued by the APOnline, Kovur.
Ex.A6  -	-	Returned registered post cover addressed to the  opposite party No.1 sent by the complainant’s advocate N.Kanakadri Chennaiah.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

                                                                                                                      Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri Kota Ramanaiah, S/o.Ayyappa Setty, Chinnapadugupadu Village, Kovur Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.
2.	Sri M. Raveendra, Advocate, Kovur-524 137.
3.	Sri K. Nagarathnam Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader, Fathekhanpet,                 Nellore-524 003.

Date when free copy was issued: