By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection act for an order directing the Opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant in order to partition the homely property and to create a partition deed, approached 1^st Opposite party, who is a document writer wide No.WDH 35.WSA 93, the 1^st Opposite party agreed to do it and asked the Complainant to purchase stamp paper for a sum of Rs.33,500/- from treasury. Accordingly, the Complainant purchased stamp papers for a sum of Rs.33,500/- and gave it to the 1^st Opposite Party and on 21.11.2013 of the Complainant signed in to the papers. Thereafter, the Complainant for registering partition deed, went to the Opposite party's office on 22.11.2013. At that time the 1^st Opposite Party informed the Complainant that inorder to register a partition deed, only stamp paper required is Rs.1,000/- and Rs.33,500/- is not required. The 1^st Opposite party received Rs.1,000/- from the Complaint for purchasing stamp paper for Rs.1,000/- and completed the registration. The 1^st Opposite party received Rs.27,650/- for registration fees and writing fees from the Complainant for registering partition deed. The 1^st Opposite Party misguided the Complainant without buying the exact stamp paper and caused loss to the Complainant. If the Complainant want to encash the stamp papers purchased earlier, the Complainant will loss 6% deduction amount ie Rs.2,010/-. More over the Complainant have to wait for 4 months to encash the stamp papers. The Complainant there by will lose Rs.1,340/- as interest. The actual amount as per law for the registration fees and writing fees is only Rs.13,000/-. The 1^st Opposite party received Rs.27,650/- from the Complainant. So there is an excess amount of Rs.14,650/- collected by the 1^st Opposite party from the Complainant. The act of 1^st Opposite party is deficiency of service and aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite parties and 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite Party, 1^st Opposite Party contended that when Complainant approached him for registering partition deed, since the widow of the deceased son becomes a member in the partition deed, as per section 42 (2) of the Stamp Act, the 1^st Opposite Party asked the Complainant to purchase the stamp paper as directed. But thereafter, the 2^nd Opposite party informed the 1^st Opposite party, that only Rs.1,000/- is required to register the partition deed. The wrong advice is given by 2^nd Opposite Party and 1^st Opposite party is not responsible for it. This wrong decision of 2^nd Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party had to purchase Rs.71,000/- for a previous partition registration (Document No.599/14). The 1^st Opposite Party collected only Rs.6,100/- as writing charge and receipt is issued. The registration fees is remitted by the Complainant directly. The 1^st Opposite Party denies the averment that the 1^st Opposite Party collected Rs.27,650/- towards registration fees and writing fees. The 1^st Opposite party helped the complainant to refund the stamp paper value. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite party. In the version of 2^nd Opposite Party, 2^nd Opposite party stated that the 2^nd Opposite Party is totally unaware of the transaction took place between the Complainant and 1^st Opposite party. 2^nd Opposite Party is an unnecessary party in the proceedings.

4. On perusing the complaint and version, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1. 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties also filed proof affidavit separately and were examined as OPW1 and OPW2 respectively. From the side of 1^st Opposite Party, Exts.B1 to B8 is marked. The contention of 1^st Opposite party is that 1^st Opposite party advised the Complainant to purchase stamp paper for Rs.33,500/- is as per the direction of 2^nd Opposite Party. But 2^nd Opposite party filed version and deposed before the Forum that he do not give such a direction to 1^st Opposite party. 2^nd Opposite Party denied the contention of 1^st Opposite Party to that aspect. Since 2^nd Opposite Party denied the contention of 1^st Opposite Party, the burden is upon the 1^st Opposite party to prove his contention. In the cross examination of 1^st Opposite Party, 1^st Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant purchased the stamp paper for Rs.33,500/- as per 1^st Opposite party's direction. 1^st Opposite party also admitted that there was a confusion existed at the time of Complainant's registration regarding stamp duty. The Complainant have no prayer against 2^nd Opposite party. On perusal, the Forum found that 1^st Opposite party is licensed document writer who is expected to give proper advice to the parties regarding registration and stamp paper. If 1^st Opposite Party have any confusion it should have been cleared before giving advice to the party. A common man do not have any knowledge about it. Regarding registration fees and writing fees, no authenticated document or witness is produced by both parties to prove the same. Here the prayer is to get compensation for the deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite party. On perusal of entire evidences and documents, the Forum found that giving wrong advice to the Complainant to purchase stamp paper for Rs.33,500/- which caused loss and mental agony to the Complainant is a deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand) only as compensation to the Complainant for the deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite party and the 1^st Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The 1^st Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum thereafter.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24^th day of July 2015.

Date of Filing:14.03.2014

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Ealias. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Mani. P.A Document Writer.

OPW2. Jose. Sub Registrar, SRO Bathery.

Exhibits for the complainant:

Nil.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

B1. Mathrubhumi News paper Page No.9. dt:25.11.2013.

B2. Document Journal - 2013 November.

B3. Document Journal – 2013 September.

B4. Copy of Partition Deed. dt:14.03.2014.

B5. Copy of Partition Deed. dt:18.03.2014.

B6. Application. dt:09.12.2014.

B7. Copy of Document 4711/1/14.

B8. Receipt Book (Vol. No.74)