DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 58 of 2020

 

Sri Rettick Bakshi,

S/O. Lt. Bani Madhab Bakshi,

C/O.-Smt. Pratima Datta,

Ramnagar Road No.5,

P.O.-Ramnagar,

P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Branch Manager,

Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.

C/o. Directorate of Lands Record and Settlement,

Palace Compound,

P.S.-West Agartala, P.O.-Agartala,

West Tripura.

 

2. Manager,

Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited,

301, Centre Point,

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,

Police Station:- Bhoiwada Police Station, 

Parel, Mumbai-400012, Maharashtra, India. 

 

3. Principal Secretary

Revenue Department,

Government of Tripura,

New Secretariat Building, 

Agartala, Tripura-799010........................................................................ Opposite Parties.

 

  __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

  Sri Pritam Deb,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. Nos.1 & 2  : Sri Rana Gopal Chakraborty,

  Smt. Simita Chakraborty,

  Advocates. 

For the O.P. No.3 : None appeared. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 11/08/2021.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Rettick Bakshi, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining negligence & deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant had purchased a E-Stamp of Rs.10/- from SHCIL located at Directorate of Land Settlement Office near Town Hall, Agartala, Tripura West. Thereafter, the Complainant asked the office staff to give him E-Stamp of Rs.10/- in his own name for affidavit purpose. The Complainant paid Rs.10/- as stamp value but surprisingly office staff asked him to pay Extra Rs.10/- i.e. total amount of Rs.20/-. The Complainant asked office staff why he would pay extra Rs.10/- as in the Stamp paper it was clearly written Rs.10/- as stamp value, then the office staff very rudely and loudly told to the Complainant that Rs.10/- was charged for User/Stationery Charges. Then, the Complainant enquired the fact to the office-in-charge of the SHCIL but they did not entertain the matter and misbehaved with the Complainant. The Office-in-charge of SHCIL also told that it is rule of their office to charge Extra Rs.10/- beyond the actual stamp value for User/Stationery Charges for E-Stamp. As a result the Complainant had to suffer mental pressure, agony and faced harassment in front of the other customers which was unbearable to him.

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conduct of the O.Ps.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.2,15,000/-(Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.15,000/- )  as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, negligence and  mental agony  from the O.Ps.  

Hence this case.     

2. On the other hand O.P. Nos.1 & 2 contested the case by filling written statements. 

        In the written statements the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seritem. Mostly, O.P. Nos.1 & 2 denied the dispute and averred that the instant complaint is false and concocted and it is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, it is averred that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint as there is hopelessly barred by the Principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.   

  The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 in their written statements / written version stated that there is no cause of action in filing the instant complaint.  Moreover the answering O.P. Nos.1 & 2 vehemently denies, disputes and obejcts the claim of the Complainant as narrated in Para-04 to 06 regarding misbehaviour of staffs of O.P. Nos.1 & 2 as they are educated and skilled professionals. The Government of Tripura has appointed Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. as the Central Record keeping Agency for computerization of stamp duty administration system (C-SDAS) in the State of Tripura, in terms of the Agreement dated November 12, 2018 executed between Governor of Tripura, being represented by the Additional Secretary, Revenue and Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. 

           The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 relied upon the two documents i.e. agreement dated November, 12, 2018 executed between Governor of Tripura, being represented by the Additional Secretary, Revenue and Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. and Notification vide No.F.5(30)-DSLR/NLRMP/2012/II dated 03/06/2018 and 14/06/2018 issued by Principal Secretary, Revenue & Inspector General of Registration.     

  It is stated that there is no act of deficiency or negligence on the part of the answering O.P. Nos.1 & 2 and that the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 cannot be held liable for deficiency of service in any manner.         

          It is also mentioned that in the complaint petition the Complainant failed to show any kind of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.         On admission of the complaint notices are issued upon the O.Ps. But the O.P. No. 3 after receiving the notice did not turn up and consequently the case was proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. No.3 vide order dated 18/11/2020.             

                                           

      

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

4. Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 2 documents comprising 2 sheets under a Firisti dated 24/08/2020. The documents are namely Photocopy of Stamp Value & Print copy of notification.  On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. 

        On behalf of the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 one witness namely Sri Arnab Chakraborty, Working as Assistant Manager, Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. was examined. The said witness has produced 3 documents comprising 25 sheets under a Firisti dated 26/03/2021.The Documents are namely Agreement dated November 12,2018 executed between Governor of Tripura, being represented by the Additional Secretary, Revenue and Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd., Notification  Vide No.F.5(30)-DSLR/NLRMP/2012/II dated, 03/06/2018 and 14/06/2018 issued by Principal Secretary, Revenue & Inspectior General of Registration, the Rules of E-Stamping. & Notice relating to stationery charges issued by the O.P. Nos.1 & 2. On identification the documents have been  marked  as Exhibit -A Series.  

         

5. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

    (i). Whether the proceeding is maintainable in law? 

        (ii). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the Complainant?

    (iii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?

                     

6. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES :

          We have heard arguments of both sides.

    At the time of argument, Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the Complainant had purchased a E-Stamp of Rs.10/- from the O.P. on 17/08/2020 but the O.P. No.I took extra Rs.10/- that is total amount of Rs.20/-. The Complainant asked the staff about the reason of taking extra Rs.10/- and they told that it is charges for User / Stationery Charges. The taking of extra charge beyond the value of the E-stamp is illegal and it amounts to unfair trade practice. Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the conduct of the O.Ps. also amounts to deficiency of service. The O.P. can not levy beyond the maximum retail price of the goods. The O.P. have violated the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. It is a case of violation of MRP.  He further submitted that the exhibited documents clearly proves that the Complainant has been able to prove his case. In addition written argument is also submitted on behalf of the Complainant. 

            On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Rana Gopal Chakraborty on behalf of the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 submitted that the instant proceeding is not maintainable in law as because E-Stamp is not a goods as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The definition of goods as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 means goods as defined in the sale of Goods Act, 1930. Selling of E-Stamp is under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the rules framed their under. The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are the mere agent of the Government of Tripura for the purpose of collection of Stamp duty which is a revenue collection and it is the part of sovereign function of the Government of Tripura. They have notified “The Tripura Stamp of payment of duty by means of E-Stamping” Rules-2018 for collection of Stamp duty by implementing the E-Stamping system. Learned Counsel further submitted that Government of Tripura has appointed O.P. No.I as the Central Record Keeping Agency for computerization of stamp duty administration system (C-SDAS) in the State of Tripura in terms of the Agreement dated November 12, 2018 executed between the parties. As per Agreement O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are authorized to collect extra charges as Stationery Charges. So, the instant proceeding is not maintainable in law and it is liable to be dismissed.

7. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

           All the points are taken up together for decision.  

          We have perused the pleadings as well as evidences of both sides and also considered the arguments of both Counsel. We find much  force in the submission of Learned Counsel of O.P. Nos.1 & 2.

      At first we will decide the question of maintainability of the proceeding.

          There is no dispute about the purchase of E-stamp of Rs.10/- as well as charging of extra Rs.10/- for the purchase of E-stamp. Indian Stamp Act, 1899(Act, No.2 of 1899) deals with stamp. The Government of Tripura(Revenue Department) framed rules in exercise of power under section 10, 74, 75 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the rule is called “The Tripura Stamp (Payment of Duty by means of E-stamping) Rules, 2018. Under Rule-2 Clause(K) “e-stamp means an electronically generated impression on papers to donate the payment of Stamp duty, by the Central Record Keeping Agency”. Under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 e-stamp is not a goods. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is applicable only in respect of goods and services. Consequently, the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of cost or production and maximum retail price) Act, 2006 is also not applicable in  respect of selling of e-stamp. The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 adduced evidence of one witness namely Sri Arnab Chakraborty. At Para-4 of his examination-in-chief he stated that the Government of Tripura has appointed Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. as the Central Record Keeping Agency for Computerization of Stamp Duty Administrative System(C-SDAS) in the State of Tripura in terms of the agreement dated November 12, 2018 executed between the Governor of Tripura being represented by the Additional Secretary, Revenue and Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. The witness also stated that as per Clause 4.2 of the aforesaid agreement the authorized agency are taking Stationery charges Viz up to Rs.1,000/- charges Rs.10/- and above Rs.1,000/- charges Rs.20/- . The Government of Tripura has framed Rules in exercise of the powers under Indian Stamp Act, 1899.    

      From the evidence of the O.Ps., we find that the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are Authorized Agent and there is an agreement between the O.P. No.1 and the Government of Tripura. So, we can not say that the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 are illegally charging extra for selling e-stamp for Rs.10/-.                       

8. In our considered opinion the instant proceeding is not maintainable in law.

      In the result other issues are also decided in the negative. The complaint is dismissed and no costs. 

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

                    

      Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

  DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA