KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.23/2019 & REVISION PETITION No.24/2019

ORDER DATED: 22.01.2024

(Against the Orders in I.A.No.312/2018 & I.A.No.03/2017 in C.C.No.276/2016

of DCDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

                                   REVISION PETITION No.23/2019

REVISION PETITIONER/1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Nithya S.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Dinesh Sajan K.)

REVISION PETITION No.24/2019

REVISION PETITIONER/1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Nithya S.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Dinesh Sajan K.)

COMMON ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR  D.  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The petitioner in both of the above Revision Petitions is the 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.276/2016 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (the District Commission for short).  The Revision Petitioner had filed two petitions before the District Commission as I.A.No.312/2018 and I.A.No.03/2017.   I.A.No.312/2018 was filed under Section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the maintainability of the case alleging “barred by limitation”. She has also filed I.A.No.03/2017 challenging the maintainability of the case on another ground to be heard as a preliminary issue since the complainant is not a consumer and no proceedings could be initiated against the opposite parties in view of the bar contained in the Registration Act.

2.       Both these petitions were dismissed by the District Commission.  RP 23/2019 was filed against the order in I.A.No.312/2018 and RP 24/2019 against the order in I.A.No.03/2017.  Both petitions were considered together being related to the same subject matter.

          3.       The complaint was filed before the District Commission by one Rajan attributing deficiency in service against the Revision Petitioner and the District Registrar, Kollam.

          4.       The complainant had approached the Revision Petitioner for the preparation of a rectification deed to correct a mistake that had crept in the assignment deed with respect to the survey number of the property.  The Revision Petitioner had received Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as the entire expenses including the purchase of stamp paper and other incidental expenses for preparation of the rectification deed.  But she had committed a mistake in noting the thandaper number of the property by showing the thandaper number of the adjacent property.  The above mistake was deliberate as the Revision Petitioner was provided with the basic title deeds and other connected records and there was no possibility of making such a mistake.

          5.       The complainant had filed a petition before the District Registrar who conducted an enquiry and reached a conclusion that the Revision Petitioner was faulty in preparing the rectification deed of the property with a wrong thandaper number.  The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complaint. 

          6.       Heard both sides.  We have perused the records received from the District Commission. 

          7.       The Revision Petitioner filed I.A.No.03/2017 challenging the maintainability of the petition alleging that the complainant was not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint was barred under the Registration Act.  The District Commission had dismissed the petitions for the reason that the bar contained in the Registration Act was only applicable to the officials attached to the Registration Department. Since the Revision Petitioner is not an official attached to the Registration Department there is no prohibition in proceeding against the Revision Petitioner by resorting to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Revision Petitioner had placed reliance upon a ruling reported in SP Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps Delhi 1996 KHC 646 SC.  It was a matter where a complaint was filed against the officials attached to the Registration Department alleging deficiency in service.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave an interpretation that in respect of officers appointed to perform official duties as stipulated by the statutes no consumer dispute would arise because the officials appointed under the Registration Act and Stamp Act do not render any service within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act. They only perform their statutory duties to raise and collect State Revenue which is a part of the sovereign power of the State.  The above precedent cannot be applied to a scribe with whom a consumer had entrusted a document for preparation of a rectification deed.  The subject matter involved in the complaint is the deficiency in service on the part of the scribe in preparing a rectification deed by showing wrong thandaper number. The scribe is a professional who provides service to her clients after accepting required fees.  The Consumer Protection Act is definitely applicable to such deficiency in service.  The bar contained in the Registration Act is not applicable to a scribe. 

          8.       The District Commission had considered the contentions at length and arrived at a conclusion that the bar contained in the Registration Act was not applicable to the Revision Petitioner.  There is no error committed by the District Commission in reaching such a conclusion.  The revision lacks merits.  Hence it is liable to be dismissed.  RP 03/2017 fails and is accordingly dismissed.

          9.       In I.A.No.312/2018 the Revision Petitioner had challenged the maintainability of the complaint as barred by limitation.  The impugned document was executed on 30.12.2007 but the complaint was filed in the year 2016 as the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act imposed a time limit of two years from the date of arising of the cause of action for filing a complaint.  Since this complaint has been filed after the lapse of a period of seven years it is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.  The complainant had alleged deficiency in service against the Revision Petitioner as she had committed a deliberate mistake in the rectification deed by showing the thandaper number of an adjacent property.  The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Registrar and an enquiry was also held.  On 20.08.2016 the District Registrar had reached a conclusion that there was merit in the allegations raised by the complainant since the scribe had violated Rule 3(1) of the Kerala Document Licence Rules.  After the culmination of the enquiry, the complainant had requested the Revision Petitioner to prepare a rectification deed to which the Revision Petitioner had refused to accede.  So the cause of action is a continuing one and as long as the Revision Petitioner fails to rectify the mistake by preparing a further rectification deed, it cannot be found that the complaint is barred by limitation.

          10.     The District Commission had considered all these aspects in detail and found that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation as the cause of action is a continuing one. There is no error or mistake committed by the District Commission in dismissing the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner.  The Revision lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed.

          In the result, both these Revision Petitions are dismissed.  Parties shall bear their respective costs.

SL