BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 11th day of March, 2011
C.C.No 101/10
Between:
Chigili Indira, W/o G.Srinivas,
H.No.51/964-A, Seetha Ram Nagar, Kurnool.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The District Registrar,Office of the Registration and stamps Department,
Abbas Nagar, Kurnool.
2. Joint Sub Registrar,Kurnool Sub Registration
Office of the Registration and stamps Department, Abbas Nagar, Kurnool.
- Commissioner and I.G. for stamps and registration,Office of the Registration and Stamps Department,
NBK Buildings, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of K.Kapileswaraiah, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri Smt. D.S.Saileela, Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 101/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying: -
- To direct the opposite party to refund Rs.18,605/- to the complainant;
- To grant sum of Rs.50,000/- toward compensation and mental agony;
- To grant cost of the complainant;
And
(d) To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant purchased the Flat No.201 in Venkataramana Colony from Kurnool from C.Chandra Sekhar on 31-03-2008 for Rs.5,03,000/-. At the time of registration of the Flat opposite party No.2 collected a sum of Rs.35,210/- towards Stamp duty and Rs.25,150/- towards transfer duty from the complainant. In total an amount of Rs.18,605/- was collected from the complainant in excess. The complainant requested opposite party No.2 for refund of excess of amount. Opposite party No.2 did not take steps for refund of the amount. The opposite parties received the said notice but not refunded the amount. Due to the negligent attitude of the opposite parties the complainant paid excess amount of Rs.18,605/-. The complainant is entitled for refund of the excess amount. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite party No.2 filed written version on the some was adopted by opposite party No.1 and 2. It is stated in the written version of the opposite party No.2 that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant remitted stamp duty of Rs.35,210/- and that transfer duty of Rs.25,150/- in S.B.I. Kurnool on 31-03-2008. She paid the said amount voluntarily. The amount paid by the complainant was adjusted to the Government by the department. The complainant remitted excess amount without taking into consideration the market value assistance a slip. The opposite parties and their staff did not insist to pay the excess amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 is filed. No document is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(c) To what relief?
7. POINT No.1 & 2:- Admittedly the complainant purchased Flat No.201 and got it registered 31-03-2008 Ex.A3 is the copy of the sale deed. Admittedly the complainant remitted excess stamp duty of Rs.5,385/- and transfer duty of Rs.13,280/-. Except the affidavit evidence of the complainant there is no evidence on record to show that opposite party No.2 and staff induced the complainant to pay the excess amount. The complainant filed the present complaint, as opposite party failed to refund the excess amount of Rs.18,605/- remitted in S.B.A. It is not the case of the opposite parties that they are not liable to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant. Admittedly as seen from Ex.A1 it is very clear that prior to the filing of present complaint, the complainant gave notices to the opposite parties requesting to refund the excess amount paid by her. The opposite parties having received the said notice did not choose to give any reply. The opposite parties neglected to refund the excess amount of Rs.18,605/- remitted by the complainant. The opposite parties cannot escape their liability on the ground that he complainant remitted the excess amount voluntarily. As seen from the evidence it is very clear that the complaint remitted excess amount. After knowing it the complainant has claimed for refund of the amount. It is duty of the opposite parties to refund excess amount remitted by the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not refunding the excess amount remitted by the complainant.
8. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.18,605/- to the complainant within three months from the date of the order. In the circumstances of the case no costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 11th day of March, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Office copy of the legal notice dated 20-03-2010
along with ack.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of slip dated 31-03-2008.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of sale deed dated 31-03-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nill
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
