Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/16/2019

P. Senthilkumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Chandran, - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

15 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 3.

             BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                      ::     PRESIDENT                       

                                Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 16/2019

  (Against the order in SR.No. 21/2018 dated 18.6.2018 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C, Thiruvallur-1)

                                                          TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY  2022

 

P.Senthilkumar, aged 35,

S/o P.Padmanaban, (Late),

AG-1, Manis Enclave, plot No. 3 & 4,

4^th Main Road, VGN Nagar,

Ayyappanthangal,

Chennai – 600 056                                                ..Appellant/complainant

                                                        Vs

Thiru.Chandran,

Sub-Registrar,

Sub-Registrar Office,

Walajabad,   

Kancheepuram District -631 605                           ..Respondent/Respondent

 

For Appellant/complainant                           : Party in person

Respondent                                                 : Served called absent

 

            This appeal was heard on various dates and finally on 2.2.2022 and on hearing the arguments of appellant through video conferencing  and on perusing the material records, this Commission pronounced the following order today:-

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

          This Appeal was preferred by the opposite parties under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 aggrieved against the order of the District Commission Thiruvallur-1 made in SR.No. 21/2018, dismissing the complaint.

 

1.The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

         

          The complaint was filed by the appellant/party in person against the opposite party who was the Sub-Registrar of Walajabad, Kanchipuram District. The grievance of the complainant was that he submitted a document of partition deed for registration with the opposite party on 26.8.2015. The said document was registered on payment of Rs.8,745/- as Registration charges and an document No. 21 of 2016. However the said document was not issue to the complainant immediately. When complainant contacted the document writer concerned  it was informed that the document was not made ready for issuance. The same answer was given by the officials of the opposite party whenever the complainant called on them. On 16.3.2016, the complainant’s mother and sister approached the opposite party and on payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1205/- by way of demand draft, the document was issued to the complainant. Hence alleging a delay of 7 months in issuing the document, the complaint was filed stating that the document ought to have been issued within 15 days of registration and therefore the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in causing that delay.

2.       The complaint was heard by the lower District Commission and the same was dismissed at the initial stage itself holding that there is no prima facie for the complaint to maintain the same before the Consumer Commission.

3.       Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant against the dismissal of the complaint at the SR stage itself. 

 

4.Point for consideration :-

Whether the complaint as filed is maintainable and whether the complainant has made out any prima facie case to maintain the complaint?

The Point :-

5.       The complainant/party in person submitted that the order of the District Commission is liable to be set aside and sought for compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for mental agony, monetary loss and loss of time. It was argued by him that the opposite party as per G.O.(M.S).No.99 has to issue the receipt within 3 days and has to take action within 30 days. It was submitted by him that the opposite party had purposefully retained the registered document for more than 7 months without issuing the same to him and this fact was not appreciated by the learned District Commission. He further raised the ground that even if the opposite party had arrived at the conclusion that the stamp duty is deficit, it ought to have proceeded under sec. 33 (A)(1) and 47(A)(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. Thus he sought for the appeal to be allowed.

6.       Heard the complainant/party in person.  Admittedly the complaint has been filed against an individual in his official capacity as the Sub-Registrar of Walajabad, Kancheepuram District. Hence a question arises whether the complaint is maintainable before the consumer commission against an individual discharging his official duties. With regard to the said situation it is needless to point out that in various decisions it has been held that an officer serving in Government service is not liable to be proceeded against by way of filing consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service on his default or failure to discharge his official duties.  We need only to state that a public servant/ opposite party is discharging a sovereign function of the State with respect to official duties cast upon him. Therefore, in case if there is any failure or default on his part in discharging such official functions, no doubt, he can be proceeded against but only under the law applicable and in such proceedings the Government has to be impleaded as a party, as no suit or proceeding can be initiated against the public officer without issuing a notice to Government as provided under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure or without obtaining exemption from the Court before which the suit or proceeding is to be instituted.  When that being the mandate of law for instituting Civil Suit or proceeding, which is intended to safeguard and protect Government Servants in discharging their official duties, it is needless to point out that a consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service against a Government servant on his failure or default in discharging his official duties is not maintainable when filed against an individual representing his official capacity.

7.       Even on merits of the complaint, the National Commission in the matter of .K. Mohanasundaran Vs. K.U. Gopalakrishnan Nair 2016 NCJ 564 (NC) has held that a complaint under Consumer Protection Act against the functioning of Revenue Department is not maintainable. Hence, the finding of the learned District Commission dismissing the complaint at the threshold holding that the complaint has no prima facie cause of action for the complaint to be maintainable based on the authoritative pronouncement made by the Supreme court in “ S.P. Goyal Vs Collector of Stamps, Delhi, reported in 1996 AIR 39, 1996 SCC (1)573” , Which provides that a person who presents a document for registration and pays the stamp duty on it or the registration fee, does not become a consumer nor the officers appointed to implement the provisions of the two acts render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, we upheld the finding rendered by the learned District Commission. We further state that if at all the complainant wants to prosecute his grievances, if any against the opposite party he can do so before the appropriate forum in accordance with law applicable. Thus we answer the point against the appellant accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur made in CC SR.No. 21/2018, dated 18.6.2018 . No order as to cost. 

 

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                            R. SUBBIAH      

          MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT