BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2015

Date of Institution: 05-01-2015

Date of Decision: 08-07-2015  

Jatinder Satya & Pardeep Satya sons of Lala Amar Nath, resident of 38, Krishan Nagar, Amritsar.

Complainants

Versus

1. The Halqa Patwari, Sultanwind Urban Had Bast 386, Patwar Khana, O/s District Courts, Ajnala Road, Amrisar.
2. The Sub-Registrar/ Tehsildar, O/o the Tehsil: Amritsar-I, District Courts Complex, Amritsar.
3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sub Division, Amritsar-I, District Courts Complex, Amritsar.    

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.  A.S.Cheema, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainants under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that in the year 1995, the complainants purchased one Industrial Shed at 207-B, Industrial Estate, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar from the then vendors namely KJS Industries, Amritsar, the partners of whom had temporarily shifted/ settled at Delhi at that point of time on account of political turmoil/ law & order situation in Amritsar/ Punjab. Complainants allege that as per the provisions of the applicable statues and also for the convenience  of General Public in general and for such migrated persons in particular, the State Government as a matter of policy, had allowed the facility of registration of the transfer of property documents i.e. sale deeds, gift deeds, exchange deeds etc. pertaining to the immovable properties situated in Punjab (including Amritsar) with the Registrar at Delhi. In pursuance of the then prevailing situation and the then available extended facility, the complainant vendees and the then owners/ vendors of the said property in question, mutually decided to execute and register its Sale/ Purchase with the Registrar in Delhi, itself and subsequently the Sale deed # 3959 for 10 marlas (250 square yards), Plot at 207-B, at Industrial Estate, Amritsar, was registered at serial # 17 on 10.05.1995 by paying the Stamp Duty of Rs.6,300/- and registration fee of Rs.112/- as is evident on the copy of the sale deed. The following three numbers of Sales Transfer Deeds preceding the present Sale deeds in question, were duly executed at Amritsar & registered with the Sub Registrar, Amritsar as under:-

1. Sale deed # 482 dated 12.05.1971 (Full Industrial Plot 207-B, 250 square yards) favouring Janak Dulari wife of Shori Lal & Meena Khanna wife of Madan Mohan executed by Inder Singh son of Sham Singh.
2. Sale deed # 8679 dated 30.06.1981 (Half Industrial Plot 207-B, 125 square yards) favouring M/s.KJS Industries, Amritsar executed by Janak Dulari widow of Shori Lal.
3. Sale deed # 5256 dated 20.02.1979 (Half Industrial Plot 207-B, 125 square yards) favouring M/s.KJS Industries, Amritsar executed by Meena Khanna wife of Madan Mohan.

The details of the present sale deed in question duly registered with the Registrar, Delhi somewhat appears as hereunder:-

Sale deed # 3959 dated 10.05.1995 (Full Industrial Plot 207-B, 250 square yards) favouring Jatinder Satya & Pradeep Satya both sons of Lal Amar Nath executed by M/s.KJS Industries, Amritsar.

The complainants approached the Opposite Parties  many a times with all the above title deeds and requested them for recording the requisite mutation in their favour in the Land Revenue Records, but the Opposite Parties  always deferred the matter  on one pretext or the other and thus, it was a continuous and recurring cause of action duly surviving the laws of limitation.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties  to record the necessary mutation in the complainants’ favour on the strength of the above  mentioned duly registered title deeds. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, initially, Harbans Sigh Patwari appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, but lateron none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and hence, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.5.2015 of this Forum.
3. Notices to Opposite Parties  No. 2 and 3 were also sent, but none appeared on behalf of  Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3, so Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.3.2015 of this Forum.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the exparte evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainants; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainants and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the complainants with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainants.
6. From the averments and  the evidence produced on record by the complainants, it is clear that in the year 1995, the complainants purchased one Industrial Shed No. 207-B, Industrial Estate, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar from vendors  KJS Industries, Amritsar, the partners of which had temporarily shifted/ settled at Delhi due to political turmoil/ laws & order situation in  Punjab particularly in Amritsar. Complainants also got executed and registered transfer deed i.e. sale deed Ex.C2 at Delhi after obtaining NEC Ex.C3. Thereafter, the complainants approached the Opposite Parties for recording the requisite mutation on the basis of aforesaid sale deed by depositing the requisite fee for mutation, but the Opposite Parties  did not  decide the mutation case of the complainants. Even, the complainant served legal notice dated 23.11.2014 Ex.C7 through registered post upon the Opposite Parties, but inspite of that, the Opposite Parties  did not issue the requisite mutation to the complainants.    Ld.counsel for the   complainants  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. In order to prove their case, the complainants filed their duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of sale deed Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C7. Sh.Harbans Singh Patwari appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 on 31.3.2015 in this case, but Opposite Party No.1 neither filed any written version nor led any evidence in this case nor any person from Opposite Parties dared to file  affidavit to rebut the case of  the complainants. Even Harbans Singh Patwari later on did not appear and as such, Opposite Party No.1 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.5.2015  of this Forum.  Evidence produced on record by the complainants remained unrebutted and unchallenged on record. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta (1994) 1 SCC page 243 while interpreting the Preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 submitted that no distinction can be drawn between the private service provider and the public service provider. These statutory authorities are included under this legislation. The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a  consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The text, therefore, is not, if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service or even facility. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has further held that harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. If the Joint Sub Registrar or his deputy, commits mistake in noting down the transfers or encumbrances qua the particular immovable property/ properties, then there is no reason to hold that he would not be liable to compensate for the said deficiency in service. Even if the service provider fails to complete the mutation of the property despite lapse of several months, it amounts to deficiency  in service. Same view has been taken by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1444 of 2004 titled as The Joint Sub Registrar Vs. TMT, Maragatham decided on 5^th March, 2007 that if the Joint Sub Registrar issue erroneous/defective  encumbrance certificate, then he would be liable for deficiency in service and would be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Same view has been taken by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1603 of 2012 titled as Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA) Vs. Smt.Neelam Kumari decided on 12.02.2013. So, from the entire  aforesaid rulings/ law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, it is clear that service for getting mutation after depositing of proper fee amounts to service to be provided by the revenue authorities to the applicant/ complainants. As such, this case is duly covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. As regard deficiency in service, the complainant applied for mutation of the sale deed Ex.C2 on 10.5.1995 alongwith Non Encumbrance Certificate Ex.C3, but the Opposite Parties  did not decide the mutation case of the complainants nor the Opposite Parties  gave any reply to the legal notice (Ex.C7) served by the complainants upon the Opposite Parties, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. Resultantly, the present complaint is disposed of and the Opposite Parties  are directed to decide/ settle the mutation case of the complainants relating to sale deed Ex.C2 as per law, rules and regulation, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and necessary documents from the complainant, proper fee , etc. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 08-07-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member