C.C filed on:26/03/2016

Disposed on:14/09/2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR

DATEDTHISTHE 14^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER –  2016

C.C. NO. 52 OF 2016

:PRESENT:

SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT, BAL LLM.

SRI. D. SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A. LLB,  MEMBER

SMT. GIRIJA, B.A. LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S:

Ramakrishna .N,

A/a 58 years,

10^th Cross, S.S.Puram Post,

S.S.Puram, Tumakuru-572 102.

(By Sri/Smt. G.Sreepathi -  Advocate)

-V/s-

OPPOSITE PARTY/IES

1.        Director/Manager/Signing Authority,

        Government Employees Multipurpose

        Co-Operative Society Ltd.,

        Opposite to Registrar Office,

        Tumakuru – 01.

2.      Registrar,

        Department of Stamps,

        1^st Floor, Deputy Commissioner’s Building,

        Tumakuru – 01.

(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. R. Premkumar - Advocate)

(OP No.2 – Ex-parte)

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. -  PRESIDENT

-:O R D E R:-

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of OPS and prays to direct the OPS to pay Rs.200/- towards purchase of stamp paper, Rs.1,000/- towards legal notice and commission, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards loss, in total Rs.16,200/-. 

The brief facts of the complaint is as under:-

2.     The complainant submitted that he has purchased Rs.200/- stamp paper on 21/01/2016 from the OP No.1 for the reason to give Special Power of Attorney to his Son Sri. Vinay Ramakrishna and Daughter-in-law Smt.Prathibha Karagodu Subramanya. 

The complainant further submitted that the above said E-stamp paper was not utilized for the above said purpose.  Hence, the complainant approached OP No.1 to return the above said stamp paper.  The OP No.1 refused to take back the stamp paper and to pay the amount.  The complainant further submitted that the main reason for OP No.1 to refuse to take back the stamp paper and to give money is that the complainant had to file an affidavit on Rs.20/- stamp paper and submit the same along with E-stamp paper before the District Registrar.

The complainant further submitted that his counsel submitted the stamp paper along with E-stamp paper and requested the OP No.2 to pay the amount. On perusal of the E-stamp paper the OP No.2 refused to give the amount because the E-stamp paper was found to be a duplicate one as in the said E-stamp paper it is written as “copy” “copy” and further the OP No.2 also refused to take the letter given by his counsel.

The complainant further submitted that due to the attitude of OP No.1, his counsel issued legal notice dated 10/02/2016 through courier service and on the same day his counsel contacted the OP No.2 and requested to pay the E-stamp paper amount by producing relevant documents. The OP No.2 refused to pay the said amount and thereby the OPS have committed deficiency of service. 

The complainant further submitted that the OP No.1 has given reply to the legal notice denying all the averments in the legal notice and tried to escape from their liability. Hence, the complainant filed this complainant.

3.     Upon service of notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed his version.  In spite of receipt of notice, the OP Nos. 2 remained absent. Hence, OP No.2 placed at Ex-parte. 

        In the version the OP No.1 submitted that the complainant is not maintainable and sustainable either in law or on facts and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed in accordance with law and the complaint filed by the complainant is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine as the complaint involves substantial question of law.  The OP No.1 further submitted that the complainant has not addressed the parties correctly to claim relief if any as alleged by the complainant and therefore the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. 

        OP No.1 further submitted that the allegations made by the complainant is that the OP No.1 has issued duplicate stamp paper which is absolutely false and misleading and also defamatory in nature for the reason no stamp papers are prepared by OP No.1 and in addition to the same all transaction takes place only on online and there is no manual transaction at all.

        The OP No.1 further submitted that the E-stamp papers issued by the OP No.1 are controlled by Stock Holding Corporation of India and the same is controlled by Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Federation of Karnataka State.

The OP No.1 further submitted that the above said facts were explained to the complainant through reply notice to the legal notice issued by the complainant dated 10/02/2016.  The OP No.1 further submitted that the above said relief which the complainant seeks for the cause of action does not arise at all as on the date of filing of the complaint. Further, the OP No.1 has denied the allegations made in Para Nos. 1 to 3 and prayer portion.

The OP No.1 further submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by law and in furtherance the procedure adopted by the complaint in filing this complaint is not in accordance with law and under the said grounds the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine and that among other grounds the OP No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice and equity. 

        4.      In order to prove their case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence.  The complainant has got marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C6. The OP No.1 has marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D3.  Heard the arguments and then posted the case for orders.

5.     On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the following issues will arise for our consideration.

1.     Whether the complainant proves  the

deficiency of service on the part of OPS?

2.     What Order?

6.     Our answer to the above issues are as under:-

Issue No.(1)                 :       In the Affirmative

Issue No.(2)                 :       As per order below

: REASONS :

Issue No(1):-

7.    On perusal of pleadings evidence and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased stamp paper of Rs.200/- on 21/01/2016 from OP No.1.  

8.  The contention of the complainant is that he has purchased Rs.200/- stamp paper on 21/01/2016 from OP No.1 for the purpose to make special power of attorney in favour of his son Sri.Vinay Ramakrishna and Daughter-in-law Prathibha Karagodu Subramanya.

The complainant further contended that due to non utilization of the said stamp paper, the complainant approached OP No.1 to return the above said stamp paper, but the OP No.1 refused to take back the stamp paper and to pay the amount. The complainant was directed to approach District Registrar by making an affidavit on 20/- rupees stamp paper. 

        The complainant further contended that as per the advice of OP No.1, his counsel approached the OP No.2 and submitted the E-stamp paper along with affidavit on 20/- rupees stamp paper and requested to pay the amount. On perusal of the E-stamp paper the OP No.2 refused to give the amount by stating that E-stamp paper is a duplicate one as in the middle of the said E-stamp paper it is written as “copy” “copy”.

9.     The counsel for OP No.1 submitted that if the complainant wants to cancel the E-stamp paper, he should go to the District Registrar’s office and obtain refund and once the E-stamp paper was issued and it cannot be cancelled by OP No.1.  In this regard, the OP No.1 has produced the document as Ex.D3 E-stamping application form issued by the OP No.1.  Further, the OP No.1 submitted that as per the direction of the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited, they have issued the E-stamp paper from 1^st January 2016 onwards and in that the regard the OP No.1 has produced the document as Ex.D1.  No doubt, the complainant has purchased the E-stamp paper of Rs.200/- from OP No.1 on 21/01/2016.  Further, it is seen that the complainant has asked for refund of Rs.200/- with regard to E-stamp paper with OP Nos. 1 & 2, but both the OPS have refused to pay the amount of E-stamp paper. 

10.    Further, on perusal of Ex.D3 i.e. E-stamping Application Form”, wherein in the guidelines for filling the application form the condition number 4 & 7 written as under:-

4. For cancellation of E-stamp, the client go to the District Registrar’s office and obtain refund.

7. As per the E-stamping procedure once the certificate is issued it cannot be cancelled by “Govt Employees Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Ltd., Tumkur”. 

Since as per the aforesaid condition, the OP No.1 has directed the complainant to approach the OP No.2.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.

11.    Further, with regard to OP No.2, the complainant in his complaint has stated that on the advice of OP No.1 he approached the OP No.2 and asked for refund of E-stamp paper. The OP No.2 on perusal of the E-stamp paper refused to refund the E-stamp paper amount stating that the said E-stamp paper is a duplicate one and in the middle of the E-stamp paper it is written as “copy” “copy”.  In the instant case, the OP No.2 remained absent in spite of receipt of notice.  Hence, the allegation made by the complainant in the complaint is undisputed. 

12.    In the instant case after the complainant approached the OP No.2 for refund, the OP No.2 refused to give refund to the complainant on the ground that E-stamp paper is a duplicate one.  The said contention cannot be accepted because the complainant secured E-stamp paper from OP No.1 who is Co-Operative Society and E-stamp paper issued by OP No.1 is controlled by the Stock Holding Corporation of India. The stamp paper is issued by the Statutory Authority and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that it is duplicate and concocted or made up document.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is the bounden duty of the OP No.2 to refund the amount of E-stamp paper.  Accordingly, we answer the issue No.1 in the Affirmative.

Issue No.(2):-

13.    In the result, the OP No.2 is liable to refund the E-stamp paper fee of Rs.200/- to the complainant.  Further, the complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards loss.  But, the complainant failed to produce any documents to award such amount towards compensation and loss.  Of-course, the complainant suffered mental agony due to deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.  Hence, it is just and proper to direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation.  Further, the OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation.  The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-   

: O R D E R:

1.      The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

2.      The OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.200/- to the complainant towards E-stamp paper.  

3.      The OP No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-  towards litigation cost and another Rs.5,000/- towards compensation.

4.      The OP No.2 is further directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, failing which the payable amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of complaint to till realization.  

5.      The complaint against OP No.1 is hereby dismissed.

6.      Supply free order copy to the parties. 

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, then corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 14^th Day of  SEPTEMBER 2016).

LADY MEMBER                     MEMBER          PRESIDENT