Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

338/2008

D.Geetha - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.Kalayani,Stamp Vendor - Opp.Party(s)

P.L.Annamalai

09 Feb 2019

ORDER

                                                                         Date of Filing  : 09.07.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 09.02.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.338/2008

DATED THIS SATURDAY THE 09^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

                                 

Mrs. D. Geetha,

W/o. Mr. D. Somasekar Reddy,

Managing Director,

S.K. Geetha Constructions & Interiors (P) Ltd.,

No.3/5, Ramachandra Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                      .. Complainant.                                               

                                                                                           ..Versus..

Mrs. K. Kalyani,

Stamp Vendor,

No.1/1 A2, Mothilal Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for the complainant      :  M/s. PL. Annamalai

Counsel for the opposite party  :  M/s. K. Ganesan

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.43,450/- towards stamp papers with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation damages with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she purchased stamp papers worth Rs.43,450/- from the opposite party, licensed stamp vendor 08.04.2004 for due registration of Sale Deed.   Since the stamp papers were not used for registration, the complainant approached the opposite party, stamp vendor for refund of the value of stamp papers.  On the instruction of the opposite party, the complainant approached the Collector, Stamps, Chennai on 05.08.2007. The complainant submits that during the process of investigation, the D.I.G. of stamps and the Thasildhar, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk requested the opposite party to furnish the details of purchasers by giving stamps serial numbers.  Accordingly, after furnishing the details of purchasers by the opposite party, the D.I.G. of stamps informed that the stamp papers were sold to one Bharath and not in favour of M/s. S.K. Geetha Constructions & Interior (P) Ltd.  After investigation, D.I.G. of Registration found discrepancy in the name of the purchaser mentioned by the vendor in his log book / stock book submitted to the treasury on 08.04.2004.   The District Registrar (Administration) by his communication to the Thasildhar dated:25.10.2007 informing that on verification it has been found that the name of the purchaser differs.  Since the claim for refund for the Non – Judicial Stamp was not accepted by the Registration Department without any other alternative the complainant issued legal notice on 26.04.2008 calling the opposite party to pay the value of stamp papers worth Rs.43,450/- with damages of Rs.25,000/-.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that neither the complainant nor the opposite party have relationship with Hiring of service for consideration and there is no dealing between the complainant and the opposite party.   The opposite party states that according to the complainant, the non-judicial stamp papers were issued on 08.04.2004 for the value of Rs.43,450/- and present complaint has been filed by the complainant for recovery of the value of the stamp papers for Rs.43,450/-  only on 09.07.2007, after a lapse of nearly 3½ years.   The alleged correspondence between the complainant and the Government Departments will not in any way save limitation, especially when the complainant issued the legal notice only on 26.04.2008.  This itself will clearly prove that the claim of the complainant for refund of the stamp papers value is hopelessly barred by limitation.  The complainant sold the impugned stamp papers only in favour of Bharath and not in favour of the complainant, M/s. S.K. Geetha Constructions and Interiors Pvt. Ltd.  The opposite party states that this case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.   The opposite party states that the impugned stamp papers were was sold to one Bharath on 08.04.2004 working under the complainant’s company.    Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.43,450/- towards the value of stamp papers with interest at the 6% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The opposite party filed his written arguments.   Heard their Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that she purchased stamp papers worth Rs.43,450/- from the opposite party licensed stamp vendor on 08.04.2004 for due registration of Sale Deed.   Ex.A1 is the stamp papers which are inscribed but not registered.  Since the stamp papers were not used for registration, the complainant approached the opposite party, stamp vendor for refund of the value of stamp papers.  On the instruction of the opposite party, the complainant approached the Collector of Stamps, Chennai on 05.08.2007.  Ex.A2 is the total claim is for Rs.1,85,390/- out of which, the complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.43,450/- in this case. 

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that during the process of investigation, the D.I.G. of stamps and the Thasildhar, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk requested the opposite party to furnish the details of purchasers by giving stamps serial numbers.  Accordingly, after furnishing the details and after careful perusal of records, the D.I.G. of stamps informed that the stamp papers were sold to one Bharath and not in favour of M/s. S.K. Geetha Constructions & Interior (P) Ltd.  Ex.A4 is the letter addressed to District Registrar, South Madras by the Thasildhar, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk.  Ex.A5 is the letter addressed by the complainant to the Thasildhar enclosing the copy of the Register maintained by the opposite party showing that the impugned stamp papers were issued to one Bharath not in favour of the complainant.  Therefore, the Thasildhar issued the enquiry letter as per Ex.A6.  Further the complainant contended that after due enquiry, with the stamp register maintained by the opposite party rejected the claim since the complainant is not the purchaser entitled to claim refund the value of the stamp papers.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:26.04.2008 as per Ex.A7 and filed this complaint on 09.07.2008.   Further the contention of the complainant is that there is no delay in filing the case since, the complainant received the letter of rejection only on 10.10.2007 and legal notice issued on 26.04.2008.  But the real cause of action arose only on 08.04.2004 i.e. the date of purchase.  

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that neither the complainant nor the opposite party have relationship with Hiring of service for consideration.  There is no iota of evidence in this case to prove that there are dealings between the complainant and the opposite party.   The opposite party sold the impugned stamp papers only in favour of Bharath and not in favour of the complainant, M/s. S.K. Geetha Constructions and Interiors Pvt. Ltd.  Ex.A5 is the copy of the extract of the opposite party register reflects that the stamps were sold in the name of one Bharath.  Further the contention of the opposite party this case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.  Mere letter correspondence and legal notice shall not save the period of limitation.  Admittedly, the impugned stamp papers, Ex.A1 was sold by the opposite party which is in the name of one Bharath on 08.04.2004.  This case is filed only on 09.07.2008 after a lapse of 3½ years proves that the claim is barred by limitation.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the impugned stamp papers, Ex.A1 was sold to one Bharath on 08.04.2004 working under the complainant’s company is not denied.  In this case, even at the time of argument, the complainant has not stated any reason for non-impleadment of Bharath for proper adjudication of the case who is a necessary party.  Because, the impugned stamp papers were purchased in his name which is recorded in the register maintained by the opposite party in the course of business was submitted to the Government showing the signature of Bharath.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 09^th day of February 2019. 

 

MEMBER-II                                                              PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	08.04.2004	Copy of non-judicial stamp papers
Ex.A2	05.08.2007	Copy of refund letter / claim form
Ex.A3	06.08.2007	Copy of acknowledgment
Ex.A4	10.10.2007	Copy of letter by Thasildhar to Registrar
Ex.A5	10.10.2007	Copy of letter from D.I.G.
Ex.A6	20.12.2007	Copy of enquiry letter / notice
Ex.A7	26.04.2008	Copy of Advocate notice
Ex.A8	26.04.2008	Copy of postal acknowledgment

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                              PRESIDENT