BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 402/2021 Filed on 27/12/2021
ORDER DATED: 13/11/2024
Complainant | : | K.Raveendran Nair, Parvathy Bhavan, Erayamcode, Cheriyakonni.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013. (Party in person) |
Opposite party | : | R.J.Wilson, Village Officer, Village Office, Aruvikkara.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 564. Now working as: Junior Superintendent, O/o.Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Kasaragod – 671 121. |
ORDER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant approached the opposite party for getting mutation of his property in resurvey No.353/32. On 16/01/2020 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.45/- as fee for mutation. Even after 15 days from the date of payment of the fee the opposite party has not taken any steps for the mutation purpose. The complainant sent a notice dated 31/01/2020 to the opposite party which was received by him on 03/02/2020. After getting the notice the opposite party sent a notice dated 31/01/2020 to the complainant which was received by him on 04/02/2020 in which it is stated that the complainant should produce an encumbrance certificate for processing of mutation of his property. Even after the complainant has given encumbrance certificate to the opposite party he has not taken any steps for giving mutation to the complainant’s property. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.
2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party has contended that on 17/01/2020 the complainant approached the opposite party the opposite party for mutating his property. The complainant obtained the property in the year 2001 and after 19 years the complainant has applied for mutation. So the complainant was directed to produce the encumbrance certificate from sub registrar office. On 31/01/2020 due to the pressure from the side of the complainant the opposite party sent the complainant’s file to Taluk Tahsildar, Nedumangadu along with available documents for the mutation purpose. On 31/01/2020 the file was returned back to the opposite party stating that encumbrance certificate was not produced. Till date the complainant has not produced encumbrance certificate before the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Issues to be ascertained:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in
service from the side of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
4. Issues (i): The complainant has filed this consumer complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service for not effecting mutation of his property even after complying all the formalities. The opposite party is a public servant. He is discharging a sovereign function of the state with respect to official duties, cast up on him. Here there is no question of hiring of any service and with reference to the duties preformed by the opposite party, the complainant cannot be equated to a consumer. Failure or delay to do any statutory duties may not amounts to deficiency in service as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore assuming that, the complainant has paid Rs.45/- is only a payment to be made under the statues made by the Government. It is a mandatory payment which is required to be made for the purpose of mutation and the officials are vested with the power to do certain acts on behalf of the governments. Therefore the mere payment of Rs.45/- does not make the complainant a consumer. A person who comes to the Consumer Commission must be a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no element indicating that the complainant is a consumer and opposite party is a service provider as per the provisos of Consumer Protection Act, hence the complaint is not a consumer in view of Consumer Protection Act. Since the issue no.(i) is found against the complainant, we are not going to the merit of the complaint.
In the result the complaint stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 13th day of November, 2024.
Sd/-
P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C.No.402/2021
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 series P1 | : | Copy of the application dated 17/01/2020 by the complainant. |
P1(a) | : | Copy of the settlement deed dated 01/03/2001. |
P2 | : | Copy of tax receipt dated 17/01/2020. |
P3 series | | |
P3 | : | Notice dated 31/01/2020. |
P3(a) | : | Copy of the postal receipt dated 02/02/2020. |
P3(b) | : | Reply letter dated 18/11/2021 from department of Posts, India. |
P3(c) | : | Copy of the thapal register. |
P4 series P4 | : | Letter dated 31/01/2020. |
P4(a) | : | Copy of the postal cover. |
P5 | : | Certificate of encumbrance on property dated 04/02/2020. |
P6 | : | Copy of the revenue guide 2018. |
P7 series P7 | : | Application submitted by the complainant dated 01/05/2021 as per RTI Act 2005. |
P7(a) | : | Reply letter from Village Office, Aruvikkara dated 16/06/2021 for the application submitted by the complainant under RTI Act 2005. |
P7(b) | : | Reply letter from Village Office, Aruvikkara dated 19/01/2022 for the application submitted by the complainant under RTI Act 2005. |
P8 | : | Application submitted by the complainant dated 11/02/2022 as per RTI Act 2005. |
P8(a) | : | Reply letter in RTI Act 2005 dated 08/03/2022. |
P9 | : | Copy of the report of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Burrow dated 12/12/2019. |
P10 | : | Copy of the order of Land Revenue Commissioner dated 17/09/2021. |
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
V. COURT EXHIBIT:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
