BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., L.L.B., Hon’ble President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Friday the 2nd day of March 2007
C.C.No.122/2005
B.Md. Abid Hussian, S/o. Late B.Md. Hussain, Muslim, Aged about 38 years,
Resident of H.No.12-45, Bandari Makan Street, Kurnool.
…Complainant
-Vs-
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. …Opposite party
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. J.V. Abbi Naidu, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and Sri. D.Yella Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, Honb’le President
1. This case of the complainant is filed seeking direction on the opposite party to return to the complainant registered partition deed dated:20-03-1939 effected in between Bandari Abdul Kareem, Miskin Sab and Masoom Sha, registered Hibanama dated:22-10-1872 executed by Imambee infavour of Munwar Sha, gift deed dated:09-07-1945 executed by Bandari Abdul Kareem as to some houses in Kurnool and some lands of panchalingala Village, exchange deed dated:09-04-1908 executed by Bandaru Miskin Sab and Abdul Kareem and others and registered sanad given by the congregation of Muslim fakirs as to nominating Bandari, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony suffered at the conduct of opposite parties and costs of the complaint alleging that the complainant’s grand father Bandari Miskin Sab- owner of Bandari Makan chavadi and shops registered Bandari Makam given to him by congregation of Muslim fakir families as Bandari Patam, to the opposite party as Bandari Makam Street and inspite of payment of fee of Rs.100/- vide D.D.No.0471978 dt:21-06-2005 in favour of the opposite party, the later did not return the supra stated record pertaining to Bandari Makam Street Nor reply to the complainant’s legal notice dated:05-07-2005 and thereby committed deficiency of service.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused its appearance through his counsel and contested the case denying the alleged facts of the case and requiring its strict proof and alleging any deficiency of service and the cause of action to the complainant and thereby any of its liability to the complainant’s claim and the seeking dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The written version of the opposite party even admits the complainant paying fees for records says of availability of any such documents with it and so its informing the same to the complainant vide its endorsement in R.c.No.4234/2003/G3. Dated:22-07-2005 under registered post and the case of the complainant as bad for non issual of statutory notice of thirty days U/S 685 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act., and the alleged notice dated:05-07-2005 of the complainant is a created one and denying any status to the complainant as consumer to attract the relief under the Consumer Protection Act.
4. In substantiation of the complaint averments while the complainant’s side has taken reliance on the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A11, Ex.X1 to X3, evidence of Pw1, sworn affidavit of the complainant and his two third parties and replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B4 and sworn affidavit of the opposite party and replies exchange to the interrogatories.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service of the opposite party and thereby the laters liability to the complainant’s claim:?
6. The Ex.A1 is the letter dated:21-06-2005 of the complainant addressed to the opposite party, along with it postal receipt and acknowledgement. By its contents it appears as a requisition of complainant enclosing there to a demand draft for Rs.100/- in favour of the opposite party and seeking for the return of the documents mentioned therein alleging them with the opposite party. It does not say and to how their custody gone to the opposite party.
7. The Ex.A2 and A3 are two photographs with their corresponding negatives. Its perusal does not indicate except existence of building and some persons in front of it. Nothing were filed to say what it represents. Nor any affidavit of the photographers who has taken said photographs is filed to explain as to their relevancy. Nor any of its mention with reference to its relevancy finds any place from the complainant’s side towards the matter in controversy in this case.
8. The Ex.A4 and A5 are the certified copy of judgement and decree in O.S.No.55/49 of Sub-Court Kurnool filed in forma pauperis seeking declaration of its title of casa garib un nawaz a minor through his next friend and mother Jainab–bie. The perusal of the said judgement indicates the dismissal of said plaintiffs claim. The complaint doesn’t envisage the concern of the complainant with the parties to the said case and hence the said judgement and decree bears any relevancy for their appreciation in this case. The Ex.A6 is a certified copy of rough sketch of the properties concern in said civil case. When the Ex.A4 and A5 finds decree relevancy to the complainant’s case the Ex.A6 also remains with the same work for its appreciation in this case of the complainant.
9. The Ex.A7 is the mere xerox of the ration card standing in the name of the complainant as resident of H.No.12/45 UP of Bandari Makan street in ward No.7 of Kurnool Municipality. It finds little relevancy to the case of the complainant as from it nothing could be deduced as to when the documents which are sought by the complainant have gone into custody of the opposite party.
10. The Ex.A8 is the office copy of the legal notice dated:05-07-2005 said to have been caused on the opposite party under a registered post vide postal receipt enclosed thereto. It alleges Bandari Miskin saheb – grand father of the complainant was owner of bandari Makan Savidy and shops and the complainant as legal heir to it. It merely says the name of Bandari Makan is registered to the Municipality but it doesn’t say as to when and who registered to the municipality. Nor does it say of any entrustment with Municipality of those documents relating to said property. Hence, a mere reiteration in said notice that the complainant has applied to the opposite party for records pertaining to Bandari Makan Street and the opposite party has paid a deaf ear to said request provides any use to the complainant’s case especially when the receipt of said notice by the opposite party is not establishment of complainant inspite of its denial by the opposite party requiring to strict proof by the complainant and any rule of the opposite party office is placed warranting payment of D.D. for Rs.100/- for providing the service of the opposite party for furnishing the record sought to constitute any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in the circumstance of non furnishing the record in its custody.
11. The Ex.A9 is a copy of registered Hiba nama executed by Imam bee on 22-10-1872 in favour of Munwar sha S/o. Kareem Mohamed Sha gifting its scheduled property consisting of houses, shops and grave yard places. As no material appears in the complaint as to the concern of the complainant with the person who has got the said gift, the Ex.A9 bears any relevancy for its appreciation in the complainant’s contentions against the opposite party.
12. The Ex.A10 is a copy of registered gift deed dated:09-07-1945 said to have been executed by Bandari Abdul Kareem S/o. Miskin Sab gifting the properties mention in its scheduled to Miskin saheb S/o. Masoom Saheb. This document as merely saying of the gifting of property concerning therein, in the absence of any cogent material from the complainant side as to his concern therein and as to well the custody of said document has gone in to the custody of the opposite party the said Ex.A10 is remaining of any avail to adjudicate the contentions of the complainant against the opposite party as to the alleged acts of deficiency of the opposite party.
13. The Ex.A11 is a copy of registered partition deed dated:20-03-1939 as to the partition of the properties mentioned therein in between Bandari Abdul Karim S/o. Miskin Saheb, Miskin sab S/o. Masoom Sha and Masoom Sah S/o. Miskin Sha. This document is merely envisaging of the partition of the properties among its constituents. In the absence of any cogent material from the complainant side as to when and how the custody of said document has gone into the hands of the opposite party the said Ex.A11 doesn’t serve any purpose in adjudicating the alleged contentions levelled against the opposite party in this case.
14. In the absence of any cogent material as to submission of the scheduled records to the opposite party there appears any malafied or unnaturality in the endorsement of the opposite party given in the Ex.B1 as to non availability with it of the documents/record sought by the complainant from the opposite party and in returning the demand draft bad to the complainant.
15. The Ex.B2 is Kurnool District gazett dated:01-03-2002 deviding the Kurnool Municipal Corporation into ten zones for revision of property tax. None of the above zones shows any street by name Bandari Maskin Street and hence the contentions of the complainant as to record pertaining to Bandari Miskin Street appears to be a speculative one with any basis.
16. While the Ex.B3 envisages a complaint preferred by the opposite party to the Head Post Master General Post office Kurnool as to a registered letter number 3056 dated:18-08-2005 addressed to the complainant – alleging non receipt of acknowledgment from its addressee, the Ex.B4 is response to Ex.B3 by concern post office as to delivery of said registered letter to said addressee. This being in reference to the endorsement marked in Ex.B1, the receipt of return demand draft by complainant remains established.
- The Ex.x1 to x3 sketch pertaining to survey No.337, 336 of Kurnool Municipal Corporation and its F.M.B. Plan respectively. The evidence of the PW1 R.Vijaya Saradhi town Surveyor of the Kurnool Municipal Corporation says the Ex.X1 is sketch pertaining to survey No.337of Kurnool Municipal corporation and its location in ward No.13 and the Door No.12-45, 12-46,
12-47 and 12-43 standing in the name of Bandari Abdul Karim Saheb, Maskin saheb, Dowla Madhava Rao, and Bandari Abdul Karim Saheb respectively and the Ex.X2 is the sketch pertaining to survey No.336 of Kurnool Municipal corporation and Door No.48-A and 49 as of gondla girappa and the streets Ex.X1 and X2 are none as twelve peta. The above information furnished by Pw1 evidence provides any relevant material as to the custody of the documents/record sought by the complainant in the opposite party and hence the evidence of Pw1 bears any relevancy for its appreciation in adjudicating the complainant’s contentions against the opposite party.
18. A person by name S.Raja rao resident of H.No.12/37 swears an affidavit on complainant side alleging his neighbour to the complainant and there locality is known as Bandari Makan Street which was named on the name of the complainant’s grand father and muslims holding there communal functions in the mosque of said street. The said material remains of any use to the complainant’s case as the doesn’t whisper as to the material point concerning custody of any documents of the records sought by the complainant from the opposite party. Another affidavit of third party K.Narendra Babu sworn on complainant’s side also repeats the same as the farmer. Hence the said also remains of any avail to the complainant’s case for the same reason.
19. Hence the conclusion of the above as there is any cogent material to believe the custody of the record sought by the complainant, with the opposite party, there appears any bonafidies in cause of action of the complainant against the opposite party to constitute any deficiency of service and thereby any liability of the opposite party to the claim of the complainant.
- Consequently, there being any merit and force worthy of consideration the in the complainant’s case holding any liability of opposite party to the complainant’s claim, the case of the complainant is dismissed in the circumstances of the case each of the parties to this case bear their costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 2nd day of March, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: For the Opposite Party: Nil
Pw1: Deposition of Pw1 Dt:05-10-06.
(R.Vijaya Sarathi, Town Surveyor).
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Letter, Dt:21-06-2005 of complainant to O.P. along with receipt &
postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A2 Two photos (2) along with negatives.
Ex.A3 Two photos (2) along with negatives.
Ex.A4 Judgment copy of O.S.No.55/1949 of suit court, Kurnool.
Ex.A5 C.C. of suit No.55/49 court of the subordinate judge of Kurnool.
Ex.A6 certified copy of the sketch filed in O.S. 55/99 of sub-court Kurnool.
Ex.A7 Attested xerox copy of House Hold Card.
Ex.A8 office copy of legal notice Dt:05-07-2005along with postal receipt.
Ex.A9 certified copy of Hibanama bearing document No.407/1872.
Ex.10 certified copy of gift deed in document No.1521/1945.
Ex.11 partition Deed, Dt:20-03-1939.
Ex.X1 Sketch pertaining to survey No.337 of Kurnool Municipal Corporation.
Ex.X2 Sketch pertaining to survey No.336 of Kurnool Municipal Corporation
the door numbers 48x49.
Ex.X3 F.B.M. plan (on reopen of the vide order in I.A. NO.38/07).
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Endorsement letter, Dt:22-07-2005 of O.P. to complainant (along with
postal receipt No.3050).
Ex.B2 Kurnool District Gazette for Division of Zones of Kurnool Municipal
Corporation.
Ex.B3 Letter, Dt:08-12-2005 addressed to the head post master, Kurnool.
Ex.B4 Reply, Dt:09-12-2005 of postal Department to Ex.B3.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. J.V. Abbi Naidu, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. D.Yella Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
