Complaint No: 164 of 2021.
Date of Institution: 05.07.2021.
Date of order: 19.09.2023.
Baljit Singh S/o Gurmeet Singh resident of Village Maliya, kahnuwan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Pincode - 143528
…......Complainant.
VERSUS
- District Treasury Officer, Administrative complex, Treasury Officer, Gurdaspur. Pincode - 143521
- Baljit Kaur W/o Rajinder Singh R/o Muradpur - Rural, Qadian, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Pincode - 143516
- Ramesh Kumar, Stamp Vander, Sub - Tehsil Qadian, Gurdaspur. Pincode - 143516
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Manoj Loomba & Sh.Aseem Mahajan,
Advocates.
For the opposite party No.1: Sh.Sumit Kumar Singh, Clerk.
For the opposite party No.3: Sh.Suvir Mahajan, Advocate.
Opposite party No.2: Given up.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President
Baljit Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against District Treasury Officer Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased E- Stamp Papers amounting of Rs.1,31,800/- through OP No. 3 Ramesh Kumar as he is agent of the office of OP No. 1 and providing service as Stamp Vander as such the relationship between complainant and OP No. 1 and OP No.3 falls under the ambit of consumer protection Act. It is further pleaded that the complainant is resident of Village Maliya, Kahnuwan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, and he purchased 25 kanal 7 marla agriculture land alongwith Tubewell Connection from OP No. 2 vide sale deed dated 29.01.2021. It is further pleaded that this sale deed was got registered from Sub – Tehsil Qadian as the purchased land is of village Muradpur and is situated within the revenue area of Sub – Tehsil Qadian. It is further submitted that prior to execution of sale deed on 29.01.2021, the complainant purchased E- Stamp papers, from the office of OP No. 1 having value of Rs.1,31,800/- on 01.12.2020. It is further pleaded that the complainant alongwith OP No. 2 approached the office of Registrar/Sub- Tehsildar Qadian for registration of sale deed on 02.12.2020, but sale deed could not be executed due to the reason that E- Stamp Papers could not be unlocked and this was due to the negligence and inefficiency on the part of the OP No. 1 and under these circumstances complainant approached the office of OP No. 1 and also OP No. 3 but all on vain. It is further alleged that the joint sub - registrar Qadian also sent letter dated 08.01.2021 to OP No. 1 wherein the reason for not using the above said E- Stamp papers was clearly mentioned that their office found these E- Stamp papers were already locked which means they were already issued to somebody else, but even then no response till date has been received by the complainant from the office of OP No. 1. It is further alleged that under compulsion the complainant was forced to purchase another set of E- Stamp papers for registration of sale deed on 29.01.2021 and on those papers sale deed was executed. It is further alleged that due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 1 and his office, the complainant has to spent extra money and till date he has not received back the amount to tune of Rs.1,31,800/- as they remained unused E- Stamp papers purchased by him on 1.12.2020 due to wrongly issued E-Stamp papers as they were locked. It is further pleaded that the certificate/letter issued by joint sub registrar Qadian Dated 08.01.2021, it is clear that the E- Stamp papers in question could not be used due to the fault on the part of office of OP No. l and the same is clearly deficiency in service on their part. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to release the above said amount of the complainant i.e. Rs.1,31,800/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of purchase of E- Stamp papers till its realization plus Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for harassment, physical and mental agony, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through Sarjiwan Kumar clerk and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.1. It is further pleaded that OP No.1 is not competent to refund the amount as per rule. It is further pleaded that the complaint is non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. S.D.M. Gurdaspur who is the competent authority to refund the E-Stamp papers amount under the Punjab Govt. instruction. It is further pleaded that complainant should approach to the concerned S.D.M. for refund the amount of E-Stamp papers as per Govt. Instructions. It is pleaded that the complainant was purchased E-Stamp papers amount of Rs.96,000/- not Rs.1,31,800/- as per the certificate issued vide No. IN-PB09963461913840S dated 1.12.2020. It is further pleaded that the OP No.1 has not received the letter dated 08.01.2021 as per office record. It is further pleaded that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is fully competent to refund the amount of E-Stamp papers as per Punjab Govt. Instructions. It is further pleaded that OP No.1 is to refund the amount when the S.D.M. sent the bill of E-Stamp papers in the office of the OP No.1. It is further pleaded that the complainant should approach to the concerned S.D.M. for this purpose. It is further pleaded that the OP No.1 has no fault of issue the E-Stamp papers to the complainant under the rule and is not liable to refund any amount to the complainant as per Punjab Govt. Instruction.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite Party No.2 given up vide order dated 03.08.2022.
5. Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that no cause of action has accrued to complainant to file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant has concealed material facts and hence is not entitled to the relief prayed for. It is pleaded that that complainant purchased E-Stamp papers worth Rs.96,000/- on dated 01.12.2020 vide certificate No.IN-PB09963461913840S. It is further pleaded that complainant purchased another E-Stamp paper worth Rs.500/- as an additional fees vide bearing certificate No.IN-PB09963461913840S and certificate No.IN-PB10191439645224T on dated 04.1.2021. It is further pleaded that complainant did not purchased E-Stamp papers amounting to Rs.1,31,800/- through the opposite party No. 3. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3 and role of the opposite party No. 3 is confirmed from the fact that complainant purchased E-Stamp paper worth Rs.96,000/- on dated 1.12.2020 and another E-Stamp paper worth Rs.500/- as an additional fees. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Baljit Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A along with other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Des Raj, (District Treasury Officer, Gurdaspur ) as Ex.OPW-1/A along with other document as Ex.OP-1/1.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, (Stamp Vendor, Sub-Tehsil Qadian, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-3/A along with other documents as Ex.OP-3/1 to Ex.OP-3/2.
9. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
10. Written arguments filed by the complainant but not filed by the opposite parties No.1 and 3.
11. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased E-Stamp Papers worth Rs.1,31,800/- from opposite party No.3 who is the agent of opposite party No.1 for getting sale deed of agriculture land registered. It is further argued that at the time of registration of sale deed the E-Stamp Papers were found to be locked on account of which complainant had again purchased fresh E-Stamp Papers and the opposite party No.1 refused to refund the amount of Rs.1,31,800/- to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.
12. Sh.Sumit Singh Clerk of opposite party No.1 has appeared in person and has argued that the refund of E-Stamp Papers is to be made by the Punjab Govt. and competent authority is Sub Division Magistrate, Gurdaspur. It is further argued that value of E-Stamp Papers purchased by the complainant was of Rs.96,000/- and not of Rs.1,31,800/-.
13. Opposite party No.2 had already been given up by the complainant.
14. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 has argued that complainant had purchased E-Stamp Papers worth Rs.96,000/- and opposite party No.3 is merely a Stamp Vendor and refund if any is to be paid by opposite party No.1.
15. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant, Sh.Sumit Singh Clerk of opposite party No.1 and counsel for opposite party No.3 and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased E-Stamp Papers from opposite parties No.1 and 3. It is further admitted fact that E-Stamp Papers purchased by the complainant on 01.12.2020 were found to be locked on account of which, complainant had purchased fresh E-Stamp Papers on 29.01.2021. It is further admitted fact that the amount involved in locked E-Stamp Papers has not been refunded by the opposite parties No.1 and 3.
16. To prove his case counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant, copy of sale deed Ex.C1, copy of Pre Registration Docket, copy of E-Stamp Papers purchased on 01.12.2020 whereas on the other hand opposite party No.1 has also placed on record affidavit of Sh.Des Raj District Treasury Officer Gurdaspur and record of E-Stamp Papers purchased subsequently by the complainant.
17. We have gone through the record, copy of sale deed clearly shows that same is executed on E-Stamp Paper of Rs.96,000/- meaning thereby that the amount lying with the opposite party No.1 is Rs.96,000/- and not Rs.1,31,800/-. The amount is still lying with the opposite party No.1 and has not been refunded to the complainant inspite of elapsed of considerable time. The only excuse by the opposite party No.1 is that amount is to be refunded by Sub Division Magistrate, Gurdaspur but opposite party No.1 has not shown any document that in fact any efforts were made by opposite party No.1 by apprising the complainant about the same. As such we have no hesitation to hold that complainant has fully proved the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.
18. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed with the following directions:-
i) Opposite party No.1 shall receive application from the complainant for submissions of the same to the Collector/ SDM Gurdaspur within 7 days from the passing of this order.
ii) And thereafter opposite party No.1 shall make their own efforts to make sure that amount of Rs.96,000/- is refunded to the complainant within 30 days after receipt of application from the complainant.
iii) If amount is not refunded within 30 days after receiving of application the amount of Rs.96,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 01.12.2020 till realization. No order as to costs.
19. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
20. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Sept. 19, 2023 Member.
*YP*
