Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/65/2019

K. Rajendran, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tahsildar, And another. - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH           :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                             :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 65 of 2019

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.40 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Tiruvallur.

 

Friday, the 29^th day of April 2022

 

K. Rajendran

S/o. Duraisamy

R.J. Kandigai Village

Pallipattu Taluk

Tiruvallur District.                                                                                                                                .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

- Vs –

1.   Tahsildar

      Pallipattu Taluk

      Tiruvallur District

 

2.    Raja

       Firka Surveyor

       O/o. The Tahsildar

       Pallipattu Taluk

       Tiruvallur District                                                                                                                 .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties

   

    Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                           :  Party – in - person

    Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/1^st Opposite Party       : M/s.T. Ravikumar        

    Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Opposite Party     : M/s.D. Arunkumar

                                                                                     

           

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 21.04.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, 1^st Respondent and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.       Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvallur, in C.C. No.40 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019, the present appeal has been filed by the Complainant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

2.  The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased the following lands :-

1. 0.55 cents in 0.22.5 Ares in Survey No. 142/2
2. 2.79 cents in 4.44 cents in 1.80.00 Ares in Survey No.146/2

Both situated at Balapuram Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Tiruvallur District.  After purchase of the land, on 27.03.2017 the complainant approached the Tahsildar requesting to change the patta to his name.  So far as 0.55 cents in Survey No.142/2, is concerned patta has been changed by the Village Administrative Officer.  Thereafter, the complainant has paid Rs.80/- by way of challan on 10.08.2017 and applied to survey the land.  So far as 2.79 cents in 4.44 cents in Survey No.146/2 is concerned, the Surveyor has to measure the land for sub division, enabling the complainant to get patta.  According to the complainant, when he approached the Surveyor, he demanded a sum of Rs.5000/- as bribe.  But the complainant had refused to pay the said amount.  On 09.06.2017, without surveying the land, reducing about 0.08 cents, he sub-divided the land as Survey No.146/2B and marked in the sketch the wrong measurement. However, in computer chitta he noted the correct measurement of 2.79 cents and handed over the sketch and chitta to the complainant.  Thereafter, on 27.09.2017 the surveyor came to measure the land and based on the sketch with lesser measurements, he laid the boundary stones.  So far as Survey No.142/2, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.80/- as charges for measuring the land, on 10.08.2017.   But, the surveyor has not come forward to measure the land.  When he pressurised the surveyor to come and measure the land, the surveyor made an attempt to assault the complainant.  Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint in D4 R.K. Pettai police station.  He also lodged a complaint with the Tahsildar on 18.09.2017.  Inspite of the same, the Surveyor has not come forward to measure the land and sub divide the property.  On 22.11.2017, the complainant applied to the Tahsildar and sought certain particulars in respect of the land in Survey Nos.146/2, 146/2A and 146/2B under Rights to Information Act.  But, there was no response.  Against the same he preferred an appeal on 26.12.2017.  Even the said appeal was also not responded.  Since the land was not surveyed, he could not carry out the agricultural operations for two years.  Hence, there was a loss of agricultural income to the tune of Rs.3,00,600/-. Moreover, because of the mental agony he could not concentrate in TNTET Exams to get posting as a Teacher.  Therefore, he could not secure the Teacher job and towards the same, he claims a sum of Rs.6,30,000/-.  Due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, he claims a compensation of Rs.9,30,600/- and Rs.500/- towards costs.

 

3.  Despite the notice served on the respondents/ opposite parties, they have not chosen to appear.  Hence, they were set ex-parte.

 

4.   In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 31 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A31.  No appearance and no documents were filed on the side of the opposite parties.

 

5.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence on records filed on behalf of the complainant, has come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have not surveyed the land and thus they have committed deficiency of service and thus directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation towards mental agony besides another sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.  Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum, the present appeal is filed by the complainant. 

 

6.    Now, it is the contention of the appellant that he had suffered a loss of Rs.9,30,600/-.  Since the land was not surveyed and sub-divided he was not in a position to carry on the agricultural operations.  On this account he has suffered a loss of Rs.3,00,600/-.  Since he was suffering from mental agony for 18 months, he could secure only 90 marks in TNTET, which is the reason for losing the Teacher post.  On that reasoning, he seeks a compensation of Rs.6,30,000/- [Rs.35,000 x 18].  According to the counsel for the complainant, the District Forum without properly considering the factual aspects of the case has awarded  only a partial sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation.  But, we are of the opinion that the issue raised by the complainant cannot be resolved in the consumer forum in a summary manner.  Merely marking the documents is not sufficient to accept the case of the appellant.  Moreover, compensation for not getting teacher post, absolutely has no relevance with the factual aspects of this case.  However, we find that the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation only for the reason that though the complainant has made payment towards survey charges, no survey was conducted.  We do not find any infirmity in the said order.  However, we direct the opposite parties to survey the land of the complainant, if it is not done so far, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 

 

7.    In the result, the Appeal is disposed of, with the direction to the opposite parties to survey the land of the complainant, if it is not done so far, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.  Except this direction, the order dated 07.02.2019 passed in C.C. No.40 of 2018 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvallur, is confirmed in all other aspects.  Consequently, the appeal is disposed of, on the above terms.

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                         R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2022