BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT
Tmt Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI MEMBER
F.A.NO.290/2017
(Against order in CC.NO.34/2014 on the file of the DCDRC, Erode)
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2021
Tahsildar M/s T. Ravikumar
O/o. Tahsildar Counsel for
Kodumudi Appellant / Opposite party
Vs.
K P Kailasam
S/o. Pambannagounder
91/63 Kumarasamygoundampalayam M/s. J. Ranjani Devi
Malayamapalayam PO-638 154 Counsel for
Erode Taluk Respondent/ Complainant
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.22.7.2016 in CC.No.34/2014.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:
ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. This appeal has been filed as against the order dt.22.7.2016 in CC.No.34/2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Erode, directing the appellant/ opposite party herein to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost on the ground of deficiency of service.
2. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:
The Respondent herein as complainant submitted an application on 26.7.2013 to the appellant/ opposite party to measure the land in Survey No.269/10, 12, 14-B situated in Punjai Kilambadi village. The Respondent/ complainant had also paid the necessary fee of Rs.500/- for measuring the land and for erecting the boundary stones. But on 26.7.2013 the Appellant/opposite party though measured the said land, fixed only sticks on boundary lines instead of hard stones. Further, before measuring the land, no notice was issued neither to the complainant nor to the other adjacent land owners. The issuance of notice to the land owner, as well as to the adjacent land owners is mandatory. Therefore, on 30.7.2013 the complainant sent a letter to the Respondent to measure the land again by issuing notice to the patta holder of the adjacent land owners. Though the appellant/ opposite party received letter, he has not come forward to measure the land. Hence the complainant has filed a complaint before the District Commission, Erode.
3. The said complaint was resisted by the appellant/ opposite party, stating that as per the requirements of the complainant, the Government surveyors properly measured the land and fixed the boundary sticks only in the presence of the complainant. At the time of measuring the land, objection was not raised by anybody. The very fact that the sticks fixed on the boundaries itself shows that the land was measured. Only if there is any dispute between the applicant and the other owners, the question of issuance of notice will arise. In the instant case no dispute was represented before the Appellant/ Opposite party. Therefore, the question of issuance of notice does not arise in this case. The complainant also is not a consumer, and opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Commission after hearing on either side has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service, and directed the opposite party to measure the land and fix the hard stones on the boundaries of the land and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. Against the said order impugned, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party.
5. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side, perused the material documents available on record, and the order impugned, and passed the following order in the open court.
6. The opposite party as appellant would submit that the District Commission went wrong in directing the appellant / opposite party to mark the boundaries by fixing hard stones. But the question of fixing the hard stones in the boundaries will arise only in the event of paying separate fees for the same. Whereas, in the instant case, the complainant has paid charges only for measuring the land. Hence the land was measured and sticks were fixed on the boundaries. But the District Commission had erred in its findings that the appellant/ opposite party having collected the sum of Rs.500/- for measuring the land, ought to have fixed the hard stones on the boundaries, and thus allowed the complaint. The said findings of the District Commission is legally unsustainable, and is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent/ complainant invited the attention of this commission towards the Receipt issued for Rs.500/- by the appellant/opposite party under Ex.A1, and had submitted that the amount was collected not only for measuring the land, but also for fixing stones. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. The only submission made by the appellant before this commission is that the hard stones will be laid in the boundaries only in the event of paying a separate fee for fixing the same. In the instant case, the complainant had not paid the separate fees, but the District Commission had erroneously allowed the complaint.
9. In this connection the counsel for Respondent drew our attention to Ex.A1 receipt. A perusal of the Ex.A1 would show that the sum of Rs.500/- was received for measuring the boundaries and for fixing the hard stones.
10. After evaluating the submissions on either side and on perusal of E.A1, we are of the considered opinion that the receipt denotes that the amount received for both measuring and laying of hard stones on the boundaries. Therefore, having received the money for measuring and for fixing the hard stones, now the appellant/ opposite party cannot go behind saying that the amount remitted is only for measuring and they could lay only the sticks on the boundaries. In view of above, he we hereby concur with the findings of the District Commission that the appellant/ opposite party ought to have fixed the hard stones after measuring the boundaries, and the failure on their part would amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the District Commission warranting the interference of this commission. Accordingly, the appeal deserves dismissal, by confirming the order of the District Commission.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Erode in CC.No.34/2014 dt.22.7.2016. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.
S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI R. SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
INDEX : YES / NO
Rsh/d/rsj/ Open court
