DATE OF FILING: 5.9.2013.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24.5.2016.
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President.
Deficiency in service against the Opposite Party is the grievance of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant filed two mutation case before the Tahasildar Kukudakhandi on dated 24.6.2012 bearing No. 3635/12 and 3645/12 for issue patta in favour of the present complainant in connection of the registered sale deed No.10601202903 and 1060122903 dated 28.3.2012. The Opposite Party did not take any action to issue patta in favour of the complainant till date. This is a gross mistake/negligence/deficiency in services of the Opposite Party. The complainant repeatedly approached to the opposite party in this connection but the O.P. did not take any step in this regard. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to issue the patta of the complainant within stipulated time, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice learned A.G.P. filed written version/petition on dated 1.3.2016 on behalf of O.P. stated that the facts stated in para 2 & 3 are totally false and fabricated as well as to intentional to harass the Hon’ble court. The fact is that the complaint filed a M.C. Case before the Tahasildar but did not attend the Hon’ble court as well as did not file any documents as per his need and did not come to the R.I. for compliance for which the case was dropped. If any person aggrieved upon the order of the Tahasildar court, then he can appeal the higher proper Forum as Mutation Appeal and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and is not every contrary under the consumer disputes. Hence prayed to dismiss the case.
4. On the date of hearing the Addl. G.P. is present. It is seen from the case record that the complainant is absent since 21.4.2014 and neither received the written version/petition dated 1.3.2016 of O.P. nor filed counter. We heard argument from O.P. and gone through the materials available in the case record.
The stamp duty payable on the application for applying for certified copy is for the purpose of augmentation of the revenue of the state and there is no element of service connected therewith. This principle is laid down by our own State Commission in Sri Nilamani Swain versus Collector, Cuttack and others 1998 (1) OLR (CSR) 32 and similar case decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in 1991 (1) CPR 263 Consumer Unity Trust Society, Calcutta versus The Chairman and the Managing Director, Bank of Baroda.
In the light of the above decision of law we dismiss the case of the complainant due to devoid of any merit.
Order is pronounced in the Forum today on 24th May 2016.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
