PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

SRI S.A. KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER.

 

Monday, 24^th May 2010

 

Gandikota Subhan Singh, S/o Rathan Singh,

aged about 76 years, Hindu, Ex-G.P.A. Holder,

Pushpagiri peetham, Resident of 7/766,

Mochampet, Kadapa.                                                                  ….. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1) State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collector, Kadapa.

2) The Tahsildar, Kadapa.

3) The Joint Sub-Registrar, Old RIMS, Kadapa.

4) The District Registrar, Kadapa.                                           ..….. Respondents.  

 

  

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on  19-5-2010 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri K. Ramachandra Reddy, Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

 

 

 

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is a resident of Kadapa. He intended to purchase house from one Smt. Metikala Munemma, bearing D.No. 1/223-4, Srinivasanagar Colony, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa in Survey No. 687/2.   The complainant entered into contract with the said Munemma  on 9-3-2009 and the sale price was fixed at Rs. 8,92,000/-. Before purchase the complainant ascertained the classification of the land by applying for valuation certificate with R3. The R3 inturn made it clear that there was no objection for registration of deed for the house with site.  On receiving the valuation certificate from R3 the complainant paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 8,92,000/- to Munemma  as agreed and paid Rs. 79,680 by way of one challan and Rs. 4,590/-  by way of another challan towards fees paid in S.B.I. Main branch, Kadapa as per directions of R3 for the purpose of registration of the sale deed. Photos were also taken by R3. The challan was enclosed to the sale deed to be registered. The left hand thumb marks and signatures were also taken in the sale deed for purpose of registration of the property in the name of the complainant. The executant and the  witnesses also signed in the sale deed. One of the witnesses was the daughter of Munemma. After the formalities were completed the complainant submitted the sale deed before R3 for registration. But the R3 informed to the complainant and Munemma that property could not be registered because it belonged to Endowments Department property. The complainant questioned the R3 in asking the complainant to pay the registration charges in bank, taking the photos, signatures and thumb marks. But there was no answer from R3 properly. On 15-3-2005 a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2583 of 2005 was executed and registered by one Somisetty Polavani, w/o Gangadhara Guptha in favour of the vendor of the complainant namely M. Munemma, W/o Venkataramanaiah for Rs. 61,000/- in respect of an extent of Ac. 0.02 ¼  cents in survey No. 687/2 of Chinnachowk Grama panchayat. Another registered sale deed, dt. 19-11-2001 bearing document No. 7306 of 2001 was executed and registered relating to an extent of Ac. 0.02 ¼  cents in survey No. 687/2 of Chinnachowk Grama panchayat by one Gadikota Yerikalamma, W/o Ramakrishna Reddy in favour of one Somisetty Polavani, w/o Gangadhara Guptha for a consideration of Rs. 33,200/-. A registered sale deed dt. 18-12-1993 bearing document No. 4860 was executed and registered by one P. Vijayalakshmi, W/o Venkatanaidu in favour of Gadikota Yerikalamma, W/o Ramakrishna Reddy for            Rs. 14,000/- in respect of an extent of Ac. 0.02 ¼  cents in survey No. 687/2 of Chinnachowk Grama Panchayat. The R3 has entered the said registration on different occasions without any objection. The objection raised at present by R3 was without any basis. The complainant paid Rs. 130/- towards user charges which was the consideration paid by the complainant to the respondents. The R3 had no legal sanctity to refuse the registration of the document.   The complainant atlast requested the R3 to refund the Rs. 84,270/- paid by him in S.B.I Main branch, Kadapa. But the R3 asked to make representation addressing to all the respondents and also to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. On 6-4-2009 the complainant requested R3 to return the amount. But it was not done so. Therefore, there was deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.   The complainant issued a letter to the R2 to return the amount of Rs. 600/- relating to stamp papers on 9-4-2009. But it was not replied. The complainant filed a complaint for refund of Rs. 79,680/- under challan No. 167/2009, dt. 9-3-2009 with interest @ 18% p.a. and another amount of Rs. 4,590/- paid on 9-3-2009 under another challn and interest thereon @ 18% p.a. and Rs. 600/- towards costs of the stamp papers and interest thereon totaling Rs. 84,870/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs. 2,500/- towards costs. 

 

3.                Notices were served to respondents 1 to 4 and the Government Advocate filed a memo for appearance and was taking time to file counter from 25-2-2010 to 15-4-2010. On 15-4-2010 the Government Advocate filed a memo through R2 that all the vouchers relating to the above case was submitted by the complainant and the bills to the District Treasury were also submitted for sanction of the said amount and immediately after receiving the said amount it would be refunded to the complainant to which it would take 10 days time. So the case was posted to 29-4-2010. But the payment was not made. Again the Government advocate filed memo through R2 on 29-4-2010 requesting 20 days time to refund the amount to the complainant as the respondents were busy with Prajapatham Programme. Again time was extended to 7-5-2010 but no payment was made. It was posted to 14-5-2010 for payment. But it was not done so. Therefore, the R1 to R4 have not filed any separate counters but filed two memos on 15-4-2010 and 29-4-2010.

4.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief’s as prayed for?

ii.                 Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?

iii.              To what relief?

 

5.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A12  were marked.    

 

6.                Point No. 1 & 2  The complainant had intended to purchase a house bearing D.No. 1/223-4 of Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Chinnachowk, Kadapa situated in survey No. 68/2 of Chinnachowk Grama panchayat from one M. Munemma on          9-3-2009 with sale price of Rs. 8,92,000/-. Before purchase the complainant obtained a valuation certificate from R3, who informed there was no objections for registration of the house with site and so necessary fee should be paid by way of challan.  The complainant paid Rs. 79,680/- under one challan and Rs. 4,590/- in another challan on 9-3-2009 for purpose of registration of the document under receipt No. 167 and enclosed Xerox copy of the receipt under Ex. A8 for the said two payments to the sale deed to be registered. The Xerox copy of challan for Rs. 4,590/- was Ex. A7. Both amounts of   Rs. 79,680/- and Rs. 4,590/- was towards stamp duty and registration fee. He purchases stamps for Rs. 600/- and got executed the document by his vendor namely M. Munemma and presented the same to R3 for registration. The photographs and finger prints as per section 32 A of the Registration Act was also submitted. The photograph of house property was also enclosed. The Xerox copy of sale deed to be registered along with photograph of the house property and photograph and finger prints of the complainant and his vendor was Ex. A1 along with cash receipt issued by R3 on 9-3-2009 towards registration fee of Rs. 4,460/- and deficit stamp duty of Rs. 79,680/- and user charges of Rs. 130/- totaling Rs. 84,270/- under receipt No. 3138. After submitting the document for registration the R3 expressed that the properties related to Endowments Department and hence, it could not be registered. The R3 issued Ex. A4 a check slip on presentation of the document, with all details including the sale price and market value and stamp duty and deficit stamp duty and particulars of the property, Ex. A5 was market value assistance certificate issued by R3. Ex. A6 was a Xerox copy of photographs and finger prints as per section 32 A of Registration Act taken by R3 on 9-3-2009 with CS No. 000997/2009 of SRO 1117 (Kadapa) RO. Therefore, the R3 had no objection to register the document. But for the reasons best known to him he refused to get the document be registered. If the R3 had an objection stating that the property belonged to Endowments Department he would not have taken finger prints and photograph shown in Ex. A6.   Ex. A6 should be taken before the registration of the document after accepting all the formalities by the R3. After taking photographs and finger prints under  Ex. A6, the R3 refused to register a document would amount to deficiency of service. Ex. A9 was Xerox copy of housel hold card of the complainant and Ex. A10 was a Xerox copy of house hold card of Munemma. However, on 9-10-2009 the complainant got issued a notice to the District Register, Kadapa for refund of amount. The office copy of notice was Ex. A11. The postal acknowledgement and receipt was Ex. A12. On 6-4-2009 and 9-4-2009 the complainant addressed two letters to R2 and R3 to refund the amount.  The Xerox copy of letter, dt. 6-4-2009 under Ex. A2 was received by R3 on 7-4-2009. Ex. A3 was Xerox copy of letter dt. 9-4-2009 received by R2 on 9-4-2009. 

 

7.                      The complainant relied upon 2007 STPL (CL) 643 Natiional Commission in Jolint Sub-Register, District Regisrar office Vs. Maragatham (TMT). It was held under section 2 (1) (g) and 2 (1) (o) of C.P. Act  and Registration Act whether a person was a consumer or not would depend not upon whether function discharged by the person was statutory function but would depend upon its nature and the consideration payable thereof.  Even if a person was discharging the statutory functions that would not be a ground for holding that C.P Act was not applicable. In the said case the Encumbrance certificate was issued erroneously.    The concerned officer could be proceed under the C.P. Act in case of issuance of Encumbrance Certificate without noting all the relevant transfers encumbrances or transactions with regard to immovable property. Issuance of Encumbrance Certificate was a service and facility to be provided and the statutory rules for fees.   In the said decision the cases S.P. Goel Vs. Collector of Samps, Delhi 1996 (1) SCC 573 and Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta III 1993 CPJ 7 were relied upon along with some more cases. The present case on hand was not the case for registration of the document. If stamps were submitted for registration of the document and the relief was for registration itself then the Forum had no jurisdiction under the Provisions of C.P. Act. But in the present Case the stamps purchased have been returned and requested to refund the amount to which the respondents 1 to 4 filed two memos on two different dates seeking time to refund the amount. But they have not done so. Thus the facts in S.P. Goel’s case were different to the present case on hand. As discussed earlier in 2007 STPL (CL) 643 (NC) Joint Sub-Registrar, District Registrar’s office Vs. Maragathan (TMT) the Encumbrance Certificate was issued erroneously and therefore, the Hon’ble National Commission held “in view of the aforesaid discussion we hold that in case of deficiency in service in issuing erroneous and defective Encumbrance Certificate the concerned officer including the Joint Sub-Registrar, would be liable for deficiency of service and could be proceeded under the C.P. Act 1986.   Hence, we confirm the order passed by the State Commission Tamilnadu and dismissed the revision petition. It was observed at para 40 also in 2007 STPL (CL) 643 (NC) that the Joint Sub-Registrar or Registrar under Indian Registration Act had to discharge dual functions, one was statutory and the other was administrative nature of rendering of service or facility to the customers. The Registration of a document was the statutory function. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.   

 

8.                Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 84,870/- (Rupees eighty four thousand eight hundred and seventy only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization, Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  toward mental agony and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs, payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 24^th May 2010

 

 

 

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    NIL                                           For Respondent :         NIL

 

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -  

 

Ex. A1         X/c of registration sale deed dt. 9-3-2009.

Ex. A2         X/c of letter from complainant to R2, R3 and Minicipal Commissioner,

Ex. A3         X/c of letter from complainant to R2, dt. 9-4-2009.

Ex. A4         Check slip and presentation of document, dt. 9-3-2009.

Ex. A5         Market value certificate issued by R3.

Ex. A6         X/c of photographs and finger prints of the vendor & vendi.

Ex. A7         X/c of stamp duty collection , dt. 9-3-2009.

Ex. A8         X/c of receipt of stamp duty and registration fee.

Ex. A9         X/c of House hold card of the complainant.

Ex. A10       X/c of House hold card of M. Munemma.

Ex. A11       X/c of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to R4, dt. 9-11-2009

Ex. A12       Acknowledgement card and speed post receipt. 

 

Exhibits marked for Respondents: -           ----- NIL-----

 

                             1) Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant.

2) Sri K. Ramachandra Reddy, G.P. for respondents.  

                  

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :