Date of filing:- 25/11/2013
Date of Order:- 08/03/2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 50 of 2013.
Birabara Satpathy, son of Purna Chandra Satpathy, aged about 56(fifty six) years, Occupation- Business, Tractor-Agent.
Smt. Prabhasini Satpathy, wife of Birabara Satpathy, aged about 48(forty eight) years, Occupation-House wife, Both resident of Ward No.15, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainants.
Collector, Bargarh, District Collectorate, Bargarh, At/Po/Dist. Bargarh.
The Tahasildar, Bargarh Tahasil, Bargarh, At/Po/Tah/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainants :- Sri S.P. Mishra, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri M.P. Gartia, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Bargarh.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Mrs Anjali Behera .... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.(w), I/c President.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.08/03/2016. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
President by Smt. A.Behera, Member, I/c President.
Facts of the Complaint :-
Complainants in the case alleging deficiency of services against the designated Opposite Parties filed this Complaint and prayed for suitable compensation for all the harassment incurred in the process case of the Complainants is that because of negligency in the part of the Opposite Parties they were not able to proceed with some project and beared huge monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment and prays for a compensation of Rs.19,48,000/-(Rupees nineteen lakh forty eight thousand)only from the Opposite Parties.
Complainants relied and filed the following documents in support of their case.
Xerox copy of counter foil applying the certified copy of the order in mutation case 333/2005.
Xerox copy of sale deed of purchase of the suit land named in the case.
Copy of valuation Report for the suit land.
Copy of ROR for the suit land.
Copy of deposit of land revenue receipt.
Copy of EC for the suit land.(2 sheets)
No due certificate from Syndicate Bank, Bargarh.
Copy of proposed Residential Building Estimate.
Copy of the Building plan.
Letter to Tahasildar Bargarh Dt.03/10/2013.
Copy of Revenue Money Receipt Dt.05/04/2010.
Copy of ROR of suit land.
Affidavit by Prabhasini Satpathy for application of loan.
Copy of lease Agreement in between Prabhasini Satpathy and Kesaba Pradhan.
Copy of affidavit do nil for submission before the Bank assuring timely repayment of loan if granted.
Copy of Advocate Notice to Collector/Tahasildar, Bargarh Dt.17/10/2013.
Copy of Registration Receipts.
Copy of letter Dt. 05/07/2010, Dt. 17/12/2010, Dt. 18/04/2011, Dt.19/12/2011 to Tahasildar, Bargarh by Birabara Satpathy.
Upon admission of the Complaint for adjudication.
Opposite Parties duly noticed who filed their version on 15th July 2014 denying the charges levelled against them praying dismissal of the Complaint.
Heard the matter on 24/11/2015 where in parties submitted their parts in detail referring the documents filed by them. After hearing the detailed arguments, upon perusal of the petition, documents with the case record the finding of the Forum comes to be as following.
Preliminarily upon appearance Opposite Parties objected to the admission of the Complaint saying that “there is no any consideration for hiring of any services so no Consumer Complaint lies,” Forum carefully considering the situations and recent voice of the various courts including many cases where in the officer functions in the nature of services and sovereign functions have been discussed carefully and fees when deposited even with sovereign bodies for imparting of services are accepted as consideration contention of OP(s) rejected.
On Dt. 14/01/2015 Complainant files many other documents in original to establish their claim.
Opposite Parties filed the following documents in support of then case.
(1) Letter from Tahasildar Bargarh to AGP Bargarh about existence of house over MS Khata No.224 Plot No. 2179 (PO AC 0.04 1/4 dec.)
(2) Copy of the letter from EO, Bargarh Municipality to Tahasildar Bargarh about information of existing House building open MS Khata No.224, Plot No.2179 in name of Prabhasini Satpathy.
This piece of documents explains the history of plot in issue.
Complainant further filed the following documents in support of their Case on Dt. 13/10/2015.
(1)Letter of Agreement of MC Policy.
(2)Permission of Bargarh Municipality, Dt. 24/04/2010 to construct the Building.
(3)Permission from Special Plaining Authority Bargarh 16/04/2010 for construction Plot No. 2179/17882.
(4) Pass Books of 5(five) year RD in the name of Prabhasini Satpathy and others. (4 nos).
(5) EC Dt.09/04/2010, Dt. 18/04/2011.
(6) Original counter foil for application for the certified copy Dt.06/04/2010.
(7) Letter to Tahasildar Dt. 03/10/2013 by Birabara Satpathy.
A copy of the scrutinization of Advocate of the concerned Bank has been filed about the land Khata No. 2414/11943 by the Opposite Parties. Non related documents including this one are excluded from consideration.
The documents certified copy of ROR for Plot No. 2179 explains the transaction history in detail.
The affidavit for application of loan is dated 14th May 2010 and the counter foil for copy of Mutation Case. 333/05 is dated 6th April 2010. So the contention of the Complainant that only after being suggested to produce the copy of the order by the Bank can not be true as the approach date for Bank loan is later than the copy apply date. So also all other documents associated with the Bank loan are later dates. From the Complaint petition Para 5(end part). Complainant submits that after filing of initial loan documents the Bank Branch Manager and Filed Officer suggested the filing of final order in Mutation case 333/05. But all the dates of documents related to loan application for building construction are dates after the date of counter foil of application for copy of final order in Mutation Case 333/05. So how Complainant applied for copy of the final order ever before filing of loan papers is questionable. The Complaint seems to be an after thought the loan not been sanctioned.
There is no any documents also filed to prove that this document is required by the Bank for sanction of a house building loan or neither confirmed that they are ready to sanction a loan. So it can not be said that because of lacking this piece of documents the loan did not got sanctioned and Complainant incurred losses.
No any document filed by either side speaks any thing about the finality on sanction of the building loan by Complainants but only shows and proves application for the loan for a business purpose further there is no any document which shows that the loan was not sanctioned only because of non supply of final order so it can not be said that the person incurred the losses specified because of the negligences of Opposite Parties.
Another Issue raised before the Forum since beginning of the Complaint is that the Complainants are not consumers of the Opposite Parties being public authorities discharging sovereign functions. This factor/issue has already been addressed by Apex Court, many other Superior Courts including National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) and courts have answered positively that any government body if discharging administrative service for a prescribed fee that they are not immune to the Consumer Protection Act.1986. A leading case regarding this is Revisions Petition 1444/2004 arising out of AP No.337/99, State CDR Commission, Chennai wherein the matter has been discussed and tackled and National Commission (NCDRC) observed that, “If the officer is rendering statutory services on the basis of Rules and regulations by charging fees he would be liable to be proceeded under Consumer Protection Act. 1986, because Complainant availing services by paying statutory fees.” Hence the objection of the Opposite Parties in this regards ruled out by this Forum.
Another important issue raised by the Opposite Party counsel/referring to a documents that is a report provided by the local municipality about change of ownership from time to time and holiday no being assigned to the same plot. And as holding no already was issued at the time of sale/purchase of this plot wherein the Complainant gave declaration that, there is no building on structure and they have purchased land as vacant plot is false and the dead becomes void and she can not raise any Complaint relating to a null and void deed and this Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Here Forum found that all these things are related facts and circumstance and being related to land and properly out of preview of Consumer Protection Act.
The main issue of the Complainants is that they have applied for a certified copy of an order and inordinate delay has been done by the Opposite Parties providing the services. And this point is proved through the documents filed with this case record. Point to be noted here that the Public Authorities are continuously neglecting this part of their function which affects the daily activities of human life and that too after enactment of Odisha Public Services Act 2012 where specific time limit has been prescribed for these kind of functions and this is serious negligence. Hence Opposite Parties is the main authority relating the issue raised in this Complaint and is surely liable of deficiency of services.
Further Opposite Party submitted through their version that, the record Mutation Case No.333/2005 was available on Dt.06/02/2014 and certified copy applied for is ready for supply, missing of Government/public records for years together is another big problem for which general public face innumerable harassment and tension affecting their life.
O R D E R
Under the above discussed facts and circumstances Forum orders the following :-
Opposite Party No.1(one) has no any role directly as the whole process is comes in the ambit of Opposite Party No.2(two). So no charged specifically. But suggested that being the Chief Administrative of the entire district should issue a stricture to all departments functioning under him to strictly follow rules and regarding timely rendering of services related to the public.
Opposite Party No.2(two) directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only to the Complainant as compensation within one month of the order, failing which pay an interest of 10%(ten percent) per annum to this award amount. Award amount till final realizations, further Opposite Party No.2(two) is directed to provide the final report of Mutation Case.333/2005 as said if is ready within one month of this order.
Complaint allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r,I/c President
I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r
