West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/2012/121

SRI SHYAMAL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. :121/S/2012.                          DATED : 30.11.2015.

                

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

 

COMPLAINANT                           SRI SHYAMAL KUMAR @ SHYAMAL SEN,

S/O Late Radhaballave Sen,

R/O Netaji Pally, Shivmandir,

P.O.- Kadamtala, P.S.- Matigara,

Dist. – Darjeeling.

 

 

O.P.             1)         THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

 Darjeeling,

 P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

2)         THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (STAMP AND

                                                            REVENUE), and Commissioner,

having his office at Block – ‘F’ (Top Floor),

                                                            Writer’s Building, North Gate,

                                                            Kolkata – 700 001.

 

3)         THE ADDL. DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR, Siliguri – II at Bagdogra, having his office at

                                                            Station More, P.O. and P.S.- Bagdogra,

                                                            Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

                                                4)         THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,

having his office at D.M. Office Building,

P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Darjeeling.         

 

                                  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Rathin Sarkar, Advocate.

FOR THE OPs                                  : Sri Chinmoy Chakraborty, Advocate.­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

 

 

Mr. Biswanth De, Hon’ble President

 

The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that complainant purchased a plot of land measuring 6.6 decimal from Upendra Kumar Giri.  Upendra Kumar Giri has presented the deed of conveyance on 22.09.2011 before OP No.3.  OP No.3 has admitted the said document for

Contd…..P/2

-:2:-

 

 

 

registration.  The complainant has paid the entire stamp duty as well as registration fees and other charges prescribed by OP No.3.  After registration the OP No.3 has handed over the original copy of the said Deed of Conveyance.  After getting the original copy of the said Deed of Conveyance, along with four pages, wherefrom, the complainant found that the address of the identifier/attesting witness has been wrongly written as ‘Natayan Pally’, though the identifier has disclosed his address as ‘Narayan Pally’ in the said Deed of Conveyance.  The complainant thereafter, visited the office of the OP No.3 for rectification, but that was not done.  The complainant also filed one letter, but OP No.3 did not take any step for rectification of the said deed.  So, due to the willful latches and negligence, the complainant has been suffering from mental pain and agony.  Finding no alternative the complainant has field this case before this Forum with prayer for compensation.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 have filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant.  The positive version is that the OP No.3, the ADSR, Bagdorga, as per rules forwarded the prayer for correction of the said spelling mistake of the address of the identifier in the Deed of Conveyance to the District Registrar, Darjeeling for necessary correction.

It is also stated that the Government kept the provision of any rectification which can only be done after necessary approval from the next higher authorities.  Once the document delivered without objection, the entry in the secured data base of the system needs to be done with consultation to the SSP (System Support Personnel) of National Informatics Corporation (NIC) (who have prepared the software) after obtaining approval from the District Registrar.

It is also stated that there is no willful latches and negligence on the part of the OPs, as the OPs have taken proper steps for correction of the address of the identifier.  The complainant is not entitled to get any sort of compensation.  The complaint can liable to be dismissed.

  

Contd…..P/3

-:3:-

 

                     

 

The complainant has filed the following documents :-

1. Photocopy of Deed of Conveyance, being No.-I-07912, for the year, 2011, registered in Book No.-I, transcribed in C.D. Volume No.-20, Pages from 2597 to 2613, for the year, 2011, registered by the OP No.3. 
2. Photocopy of letter dated 21.03.2012, issued by the complainant. 
3. Photocopy of Acknowledgement Slip dated 27.03.2012, issued by the OP No.3. 

 

Points for consideration

 

1.       Is the complainant a consumer ?

2.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

3.       Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

 

 

Decision with reason

 

Issue Nos.1 to 3 are taken together for brevity of discussion as they are involved in common question and fact of law.

Ld advocate of the complainant raised argument that there was negligence on the part of the OP No.3. 

The Ld advocate of the OP argued in the said Deed of Conveyance the vendor Upendra Kumar Giri has put the signature and the witness no.1 is Manindra Barman, and witness no.2 is Narayan Biswas.  Signature of the vendor Upendra Kumar Giri has been put at page 10 of Deed of Conveyance.  Certificate has been given by Advocate Rathin Sarkar with endorsement “Drafted, readover and explained in the language best known to the parties by me and printed in my office”.  Signature/LTI Sheet of Sl. No.07621/2011, name of the presentant Upendra Kumar Giri, signed by Upendra Kumar Giri in the right side of the sheet with photo and LTI thereon.  This presentant Upendra Kumar Giri was

 

Contd…..P/4

-:4:-

 

 

 

identified by Manindra Barman, ‘Natayan Pally’, P.S.- Matigara, Dist.- Darjeeling, West Bengal.  “This column of identifier” has been filled in by English alphabet.  The column of signature of identifier with date has been signed by Manindra Barman.  In the Sale Deed the name of village is Narayan Pally, but in the witness sheet in the place of “Narayan Pally”, ‘Natayan Pally’ has been inserted i.e., in the place of “r” ‘t’ had been inserted.  Such insertion has not destroyed the identification of witness wherein all other nomenclature of address are same in the Sale Deed as well as in the witness sheet.  This typographical mistake is unable to vitiate the Sale Deed in any way. 

The OP No.3 in para-17 has also admitted that the said spelling mistake of the address of the identifier in the alleged Deed of Conveyance has been sent to the District Registrar, Darjeeling vide its Memo No.55 dated 27.03.2012 for correction.  This case has been filed on 11.10.2012. 

Accordingly, in the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the OP No.3 has neglected and did not attend to the application of the complainant for correction.

So, on the premise above, the material on record is in appropriate, and fails to inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum, that the OPs are negligence to the complainant or there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs who are discharging their statutory duties.

In the result, the case fails.

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.121/S/2012 is dismissed on contest but without cost. 

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.