DATE OF FILING : 01-11-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 29-11-2013,
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-06-2014,
1. Sri Pinaki Kumar Guha,
son of late Dilip Kumar Guha,
2. Smt. Mithu Guha,
wife of Sri Pinaki Kumar Guha,
both complainant nos. 1 & 2 are residing
at 447 ( P-2) Thanamakua Panchanantala,
P.O. Danesh Sheik Lane, P.S. Sankrail,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 109. ---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
1. SPOT LIGHT FINANCE & CONSULTANCY ( P ) LTD.
a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
holding PAN AAHCS 7890L,
represented by its directors,
i) Sri Rajendra Kumar Gupta,
son of late Bhaya Ram Gupta, and
ii) Sri Ratish Kumar Gupta,
son of Sri Ramesh Kumar Gupta,
having its registered office
at 1, Sarajini Naidu Sarani,
Kolkata – 700017.
2. Sri Satiprasad Bandopadhyay,
representing the District Sub-Registrar of Howrah,
office of the District Sub-Registry Office,
P.S. & District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to refund Rs. 1,30,309/- illegally realized from the complainants towards stamp duty and registration fees and Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for causing mental pain and agony as the o.ps. in collusion between themselves duped the complainants for paying the extra amount as alleged.
2. The o.p.no. 1 in his written version contended interalia that there is no collusion between the parties; that the o.p. no. 2 is the District Sub Registrar of Howrah ; that the stamp duty realized according to Government Rules. So the complaint should be dismissed.
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. After going through the materials on record and after hearing ld. Lawyers of both sides we are of the view that the instant complaint having been directed mainly against the o.p. no. 2, Sub-Registrar, Howrah, cannot be entertained before this Forum in view of the established position of law as reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 839 wherein it has been held that officers appointed under Registration Act and Stamp Act do not render any service within the meaning of the C.P.Act, 1986 as amended. They perform statutory duties which are quasi-judicial in nature and is immune under Section 86 of the Registration Act. That apart, the alleged collusion and nexus between the o.p. no. 1 and o.p. no. 2 is not proved with cogent acceptable document. If in the estimation of the complainant, the o.p. no. 2 realized extra amount from the complainants for stamp duty and d registration fee, he is at liberty to take the matter to the appropriate authority.
In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case for dismissal. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 382 of 2013 ( HDF 382 of 2013 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest as against the o.p. no. 1 and ex parte as against the o.p. no. 2, but in view of the circumstances without costs.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
