Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/352/2022

The Deputy Registrar General, & 2 ors - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O GOVINDAPILLAI - Opp.Party(s)

T.Ravikumar

14 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

   BEFORE :        Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                PRESIDENT

               Thiru R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                   MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.352/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.19/2020 on the file of the DCDRC, Chengalpattu)

 

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

 

1.       The Deputy Registrar General

          O/o. Deputy Registrar General,

South Chennai District

          SIDCO Electronics Complex

          Thiru-Vi-ka Industrial Estate

          Guindy, Industrial Estate SO,

Chennai – 600 032

 

2.       The District Registrar

          South Chennai District

          SIDCO Electronics Complex

          Thiru-Vi-ka Industrial Estate

          Guindy, Industrial Estate SO

          Chennai – 600 032

 

3.       The Sub Registrar, 

          O/o. the Sub-Registrar

          Ruby Buildings,                                            M/s. K. Kumaran

Bharathamatha Street                                      Counsel for

          Selaiyur, Chennai – 600 073                  Appellants /Opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

 

G. Gopalakrishnan

S/o. Govindapillai

15/4, Karnam Street                                                    In person

Selaiyur, Chennai- 600 073                                         Respondent/ Complainant

 

 

        The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.27.4.2022 in CC. No.19/2020.

 

         

This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on for the appellant and the Respondent in person, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

 

2.        The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant is an advocate, who had applied for online token on 4.7.2019, vide token No.TP/55350394 with the Selaiyur Sub-Registrar Office, on behalf of his client Mr.Ganesan, S/o. Ramamoorthy for registering his Deed of General Power of Attorney on 9.7.2019. On behalf of his client he had paid Rs.10150/- as stamp duty through the Punjab National Bank Account to the SBI account by way of net banking.

          Likewise the complainant had also applied for another token vide Token No.TP/55334196/2019 on the same day i.e., on 4.7.2019 with the Selaiyur Sub-Registrar Office on behalf of his client Mr.Jaganthanan, S/o. Ganesan for registering a Deed of Sale on 9.7.2019, and had paid a sum of Rs.2,01,980/- as a stamp duty alongwith registration fees through Punjab National Bank Account to SBI Account.

          But when he visited the 3^rd opposite party on 9.7.2019, the Registrar refused to register the Power of Attorney, as well as the Deed of Sale, by stating that those documents are incapable for registration due to some defects.  Therefore, the complainant requested for refund of the registration charges paid.  But inspite of repeated requests, till date the amount had not been refunded.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the registration charges paid, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50000/- towards cost. 

 

3.       The   Appellants/ opposite parties, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.10,150/- as well as a sum of Rs.2,01,980/- paid towards stamp duty/ Registration charges, alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.   Aggrieved over the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh disposal.

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties had submitted      that the complainant had filed the complaint on behalf of his clients, and hence there is no consumer-service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties.  Therefore he cannot be considered as a consumer.  Since there were defects in the process the registration of the documents were refused.  Due to Covid 19 pandemic the opposite parties could not follow the case.  The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  If an opportunity is provided, the opposite parties have a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the Respondent appeared in person.

 

6.       Having considered the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that deciding the matter after considering the defence of the otherside would always be justifiable.  Therefore, a chance may be given to the appellants/ opposite parties to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties in not appearing before the District Commission, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.30.1.2023 we have directed the appellants/ opposite parties to deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal aid account of the State Commission, on or before 13.2.2023, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

 

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chengalpattu in C.C.No.19/2020 dt.27.4.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Chengalpattu, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Chengalpattu on 14.3.2023,  for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellants/opposite parties shall file not only the vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months, according to law on merit.  

 The amount deposited, by the appellants, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

   R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                      R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT