Complainant Balbir Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make payment of Rs.1,46,250/- i.e. the amount of stamp papers with interest from the date of its payment. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation alongiwth litigation expenses in his favour on account of mental and physical harassment, in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite party no.4 being development authority deals with allotment of the vacant plots to the persons who are interested to purchase the same by process of allotment in the colonies carved out by it. He had applied for allotment of residential plot in respect of scheme OUVGL 199 residential plot situated at Jail Road Gurdaspur and in allotment draw, he was allotted plot no.150 measuring 250 sq feet at Puda Avenue Old Jail Site, Gurdaspur. The total consideration amount for the abovesaid plot was fixed at Rs.16,25,000/- which was paid by him within stipulated period. After paying the said amount as per direction of opposite party no.4 he had purchased stamp papers amounting to Rs.1,46,250/- on 26.12.2014 vide receipt bearing No.866447 GSR/001 of State Bank of India Branch Gurdaspur for registration purpose. After purchasing the stamp papers, he had approached many times to the opposite party no.4 for further necessary compliance regarding registration of title deed in his favour but the opposite party no.4 intentionally and willfully put off the matter on one pretext or other and fail to execute title deed inspite of purchase of requisite stamp paper by him within stipulated period. Then in the month of June 2015 when all the formalities got completed regarding execution of title deed in his favour then he was asked by the concerned official about the policy of E-Stamping and due to that reason at that relevant time title deed could not be executed in his favour. Regarding the same, an application was also moved by him to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur on 30.6.2015 and on that application he was asked by the concerned official that firstly he has to get title deed executed in his favour as per new policy of E-stamping and the stamp papers previously purchased by him would be refunded to him. Thereafter he in order to get executed the title deed in his favour had again purchased the requisite stamp papers amounting to Rs.1,46,250/- under the provision of E-Stamping. Ultimately when Mr.Sauravh representative of the opposite party no.4 came to Gurdaspur on 23.7.2015 to execute the title deed then the same got executed in his favour. Thereafter he moved an application on 3.8.2015 for refund of amount of stamp papers of Rs.1,46,250/- which were purchased by him on 26.12.2014 before the S.D.M. Gurdaspur but the S.D.M. declined his request vide order No.990 dated 10.8.2015 on ground that amount deposited in the shape of stamp papers could be refundable within the period of six months from the date of its purchase. Thus he had suffered financial loss of Rs.1,46,250/- due to willful and intentional delay on the part of the opposite party to not to execute and registered the title deed in his favour within stipulated period of six months after purchasing the stamp papers by him. He has also issued a legal notice through his counsel to the opposite party no.4 but his genuine request was not considered by it. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite party he has suffered great mental and physical harassment. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3. Upon notice, the opposite parties no.1 and 3 appeared and filed their joint reply taking the preliminary objections that the ld.Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint; the complaint is barred being misjoinder and non joinder of the necessary parties and the opposite party no.1 and 3 as made unnecessary party. Actually, the opposite party no.2 has been delegated the powers and the functions under the statute as collector to whom by the Govt. of Punjab the notification related to the exercising the powers and its function under the Stamp Act has been given and he is only competent authority to act upon under certain provision as well as the time and the opposite party no.2 is incompetent to refund the alleged amount of the court fee as demanded after the expiry of stipulated period of six months and appropriate remedy for the complainant was to approach to the higher authorities under the said Stamp Act and the present complaint is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has not submitted an application dated 30.6.2015 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4. Upon notice, the opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its reply taking the preliminary objections that the ld.Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint: the complaint is barred being misjoinder and non joinder of the necessary parties and the opposite party no.1 and 3 as made unnecessary party. Actually, the opposite party no.2 has been delegated the powers and the functions under the statute as collector to whom by the Govt. of Punjab the notification related to the exercising the powers and its function under the Stamp Act has been given and he is only competent authority to act upon under certain provision as well as the time and the opposite party no.2 is incompetent to refund the alleged amount of the court fee as demanded after the expiry of stipulated period of six months and appropriate remedy for the complainant was to approach to the higher authorities under the said Stamp Act authority and the present complaint is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that as per Section 50 of Indian Stamp Act 1899, the opposite party is not in a position to refund the amount claimed refunded due to the expiry of the six months statutory period and the opposite party was not in a position to go beyond the statutory rules and non refunding the alleged amount order is bonafide and passed in good faith. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5. Upon notice, opposite party no.4 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant was allotted the plot measuring 250 sq. ft having its no.150, in the OUVGL Scheme, situated on Jail Road, Gurdaspur. The plot in question allotted under certain terms and conditions duly envisaged in the allotment letter no.E.O. PUDA-ASR-2011/4139 dated 4.5.2011 and the tentative price was fixed 16,25,000/- which was leviable with interest, penalty and other chargeable interest duly detailed and described in the said allotment. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter within prescribed period after payment of the entire consideration, the complainant allottee has to get the Conveyance Deed executed as per rules and regulations and statutory rules after submission of the requisite stamp papers as required for the Conveyance Deed. It was further submitted that after complying with the terms and conditions of statutory rules and getting the clearance of the dues for the purpose of Conveyance Deed, the complainant has to fulfil the same and thereafter get the Conveyance Deed Executed. The opposite party has not committed any such act and omission. It was next submitted that in order to get the Conveyance Deed executed, the complainant was duly bound to get the stamp paper and get the Conveyance Deed executed. In case of refund as alleged, it is in between the complainant and competent registering authority and has no concern with the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

6. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence.

7. Sh.Kasmiri Lal, Clerk Sub Registrar Officer, Gurdaspur tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Lakhwinder Singh Sub Registrar Gurdaspur Ex.OP1,3/1 and closed the evidence.

8. Sh.Hans Raj Jr.Assistant of opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 and closed the evidence.

9. Sh.Hardeep Singh Sr.Assistant Estate Officer PUDA Amritsar tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-4/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-4/2 to Ex.OP-4/4 and closed the evidence.

10. We have duly heard the learned counsels/representatives for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable and statutorily acceptable merit as evidenced by the supporting document(s) duly produced on record by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant being an allottee of the Residential Plot # 150, under the OUVGL 199 PUDA Scheme of the OP4 and for its registration in his name, the present complainant purchased Non Judicial Stamp Papers Ex.C3 worth Rs.1,46,250/- on 26.12.2014 for the purpose of registration with the Registrar/ Sub-Registrar, Gurdaspur, the titled OP1 and OP3, respectively. However, the prospective registration of the Plot got delayed by the OP4 PUDA and in the meantime in June’2015, Stamp papers were replaced by the e-stamping system and thus the complainant had to pay an additional amount for e-stamping Ex.C4 to get the Plot registered Ex.C5 in his name; whereas, the Stamp Papers Ex.C3 worth Rs.1,46,250/- were left unused with the complainant who could not get its necessary refund in spite of his best efforts (Ex.C6 to Ex.C10) and thus prompted the present complaint against the titled opposite parties.

11. We find that the Registrar/ Sub-Registrar, Gurdaspur; here, the OP1 & OP3, respectively, have duly stated (Ex.OP1,3/1) that the OP2 SDM, Gurdaspur has been statutorily authorized to ‘refund’ for the unused/ spoiled Stamp Papers as has been duly confirmed Ex.C2 by the representative of the OP2 SDM but to the purchaser (Ex.OP2/1) only i.e., in whose name the Stamp Papers stood purchased/issued.

12. We, further find that the OP4 PUDA have also agreed to pay (Ex.C11) the refund amount of the Stamp Papers to the present complainant upon receipt of the same from the O/o the OP2 SDM, Gurdaspur. The OP4 PUDA has also supplemented its above-said affirmation vide its affidavit Ex.OP4/1 and exhibits Ex.OP4/2 to Ex.OP4/4 that somehow also implies that the it had been the callous act and attitude of the OP4 PUDA that has caused loss cum inconvenience cum harassment to the complainant by way of causing delay in use of the Stamp Papers purchased in December’ 2014 to let these become defunct in June’ 2015 upon introduction of the e-stamping system.

13. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint for its best disposal by directing the complainant to handover all the defunct Non Judicial Stamp Papers for Rs.1,46,250/- to the OP4 PUDA within 10 working days of the receipt of the copy of these orders and who (PUDA) shall apply and receive its refund form the OP2 SDM, Gurdaspur and pay the same (full refund amount of Rs.1,46,250/-) to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 working days of the receipt of the traditional Stamp Papers, in question. The OP2 SDM is also directed to pay the full refund amount of the said Stamp Papers to the OP4 PUDA within 15 (fifteen) working days of receipt of the same from the OP4 PUDA, the formal purchaser of the Stamp Papers, in question.

14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

President.

ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)

September 15, 2017 Member.

*MK*