SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  for an order directing  the 1^st OP to issue the survey sketch plan  to the complainant   along with OPs 1&2 jointly  pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-  for the deficiency of service on their part and OPs 2&3 jointly pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as  compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on  the  part of OP’s.

The brief  of the complaint :

    The  complainant  and  his family residing in Thalassery Taluk, Mannayad Desom lying in RS No.8/3 having  an extent  of 2 cents in ward No.I - House No.144. At the time of  constructing the 1^st floor of the house  the Thalassery Muncipality officer came to  complainant’s house and stated that for regularization of the 1^st floor to produce the permit before the municipality.  Then the complainant applied before the  Sec.E 3-9395 with all documents on 10/3/2020.  The complainant also received the receipt.  Thereafter the Thalassery municipal officers inspected the complainant’s house and property and directed to remit Rs.3500/- to obtain the permit .  On 13/3/2020 the complainant remitted the amount to Thalassery municipality and he obtained the receipt No.01/119020128504.  Thereafter on 13/7/2020 the complainant got a  notice from Thalassery municipality to produce survey sketch plan before the office.  As per the direction of   3^rd OP the complainant had remitted Rs.590/- before Thalassery Sub Treasury office dtd.1/10/2020 as A/c No.00290080099 and  the  receipt produced before  3^rd OP.  After receiving  the receipt the 3^rd OP demanded some more amount as bribery.  But the complainant is not ready to pay the  bribery amount.  But on 11/2/2021 the 3^rd OP send a letter to the complainant Ref.H.1/12390/20.  Since there is  boundary dispute between the adjacent property owners only after clearing  the dispute by the  competent  civil court  the OP can prepare a sketch on payment of fees to government.  Moreover the  complainant stated that all documents are produced before the officers also.  The complainant further states that he filed a complaint against the mosque committee before  SDM Thalassery .  Then the SDM court issue notice to mosque committee and take evidence and the order pronounced against the mosque committee on 23/6/2020 in EI-243247/20.  As per the above case the  OP’s  on the side of Mosque committee.  So the OPs are in enimical terms with the complainant.  So the act of  OPs, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

    After receiving  notice  OPs1&2 entered before the commission  and filed their written version contending that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act.  They submits that the complainant filed  an application before  1^st OP on 28/9/2020 for getting an FMB sketch and paid an amount of Rs.590/- in Treasury A/c on 1/10/2020.  Since it came under the purview of 3^rd OP. Land records, Taluk Office, Thalassery issued FMB sketch as applied  and it was received and acknowledged by the complainant on 13/10/2020.  So the OPs  have not  demanded to pay any amount for measuring complainant’s property.  Since there is boundary dispute between the  adjacent property owners.  It is admitted that the OP issued a letter to the complainant on 11/2/2021 with No.H/1/12390/2020 only when the sketch plan was preparing , directing the complainant to pay the  relevant fees to Govt. account.  The  OP has not prepared the sketch and not  demanded to pay the fees also.  The OP submits that only after clearing the dispute by competent  civil  court this OP can prepare a sketch on payment of fees to government.   The fees accepted by the  Govt. are not with a  profit motive.  The service granted by Govt. authorities could not be came under the definition of consumer  dispute.  The bribery and  other allegations are denied by the  OPs. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs  to issue the sketch plan.  The complainant is not entitled  for getting any type of compensation or damage stated in the  complaint.  Hence the  complaint may be dismissed.

      On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts. A1 to A14 were marked. On OP’s side DW1 was examined and no documents  marked.

Issue Nos.1 to 3 taken together: 

         The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  The complainant was cross examined as PW1 by   OPs. On  complainant’s side  Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on his part to substantiate his case.  In Ext.A1 is the chalan receipt dtd.1/10/2020.  Ext.A2 is the application  dtd.28/9/2020& 16/10/2020. Ext.A3 is the letter issued by 3^rd OP to complainant dtd.11/2/2020.  Ext.A4 is the notice dtd.21/10/2020.   Ext.A5 is the order of SDM Thalassery dtd.23/6/2020, Ext.A6 is the report of village officer Thalassery  dtd.6/2/2020,  Ext.A7 is the report of Thahasildar dtd.26/2/20, Ext.A8 is the sketch plan dtd.11/3/20, 18/6/20, Ext.A9 is the  land tax receipt dtd.18/6/21,Ext.A10 is the house tax receipt, Ext.A11 is  possession certificate, Ext.A12 is the letter issued by Tahasildar,Thalassery, Ext. A13 is  application and receipt and Ext.A14 is the acknowledgment receipt of RTI.  In the evidence of PW1 who clearly states that Ext.A1  പ്രകാരം ആണ് 590/- രൂപ അടച്ചത്.  അത് treasury chalan  receipt ആണ്.Ext.A1ലെ 3-ാംമത്തെ കോളത്തിൽ purpose എന്താണ് എന്ന് രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. അതുപ്രകാരംFMB ക്കാണ്   application കൊടുത്തിട്ടുള്ളത്.FMB നിങ്ങൾക്ക് കിട്ടിയിട്ടുണ്ട്?  കിട്ടിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. Ext.A2(series) നുശേഷം വേറെ പണം അടച്ചിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല. വന്ന officials  നിങ്ങളുടെ കയ്യിൽ നിന്ന് Govt. fees അല്ലാതെ വേറെ പണം ഒന്നും വാങ്ങിയിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല.  ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥർ വേറെ പണം ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് police ലും vigilance ലും പരാതിപ്പെട്ടില്ല. So it is clear that the OPs have not received any amount from the complainant.  In the evidence  of DW1 who also deposed that”പരാതിക്കാരൻ എന്തിനാണോ അപേക്ഷ നൽകിയത്  അതാണ് നല്കേണ്ടത്? അതെ. Ext.A2 പ്രകാരം Revenue sketch എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ? FMB ആണ്. FMB യ്ക്ക് treasuryൽ അടയ്ക്കേണ്ട തുക 500/- ആണ്? ആ സമയത്ത് 590/- രൂപയാണ്. പരാതിക്കാരൻ അടച്ചത് 590/- രൂപയാണ്?. അതെ. Moreover he deposed that Ext.A1 പ്രകാരം 1/10/2020 നുള്ള പൈസ അടച്ചതിന് FMB sketch കൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ട്.28/9/2020 നുള്ള Ext.A2 പ്രകാരം പൈസ അടയ്ക്കുകയോ പൈസ വാങ്ങുകയോ ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല.

   After perusing the documents, and evidence the complainant is not in a position to prove that the OP’s side there is any deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice  against  the OPs.  Both side argued the matter and the  OPs produced 2 decisions also.  Hon’ble National commission reported in  2014 4 CPJ(NC) 601, 2014 4CPR (NC) 740 V.B.Ambedkar vs District Collector  held that –deficiency in service-failure to officials-to conduct  measurement of  land- Act of measurement of land is not a commercial activity.  Act of measurement of land is a duty cast under Revenue Act- it cannot be said that respondent was rendering any kind of  service for consideration- Collector does not render service for consideration-Act of measurement of land is not a commercial activity- It is a statutory function under Revenue Act.  Hon’ble National Commission also reported in 2016 2 CPJ (NC) 789, 2016 1 CPR NC 762.  Consumer Protection Act is not applicable for statutory functions of state government.  So it is clear that there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of OP.

       As discussed above the complainant has not proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs.  Thus the issue 1 to 3 found against  the complainant.

       In the result the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost and compensation.

Exts:

A1 - chalan receipt dtd.1/10/2020.

A2 - application  dtd.28/9/2020& 16/10/2020.

A3- letter issued by 3rd OP to complainant dtd.11/2/2020.

A4 - notice dtd.21/10/2020.  

A5- order of SDM Thalassery dtd.23/6/2020,

A6 - report of village officer Thalassery  dtd.6/2/2020,

A7- report of Thahasildar dtd.26/2/20,

A8 - sketch plan dtd.11/3/20, 18/6/20,

A9 -  land tax receipt dtd.18/6/21,

A10- house tax receipt,

.A11- possession certificate,

A12- letter issued by Tahasildar,Thalassery,

 A13- application and receipt

A14- acknowledgment receipt of RTI.

PW1-Jayan Parameswaran- complainant

DW1-Shajesh Ekkadavat- 2nd    OP

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                 MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                            Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR