BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 (herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OPs:-

(a) Direct the OPs to rectify the mistake.

(b) Direct the OPs to pay Rs.14,100/- which was paid to get the certified copies, transportation etc.,

(c) direct the OPs to pay cost of this proceedings.

(d) direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation.

(e) Grant such other reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has purchased flat No.103 in 1^st Floor of B.L.Pristine having 1135 sq.ft. of super built up area with 200 sq.ft. undivided share under registered sale deed dated 0744.11.2019 for consideration of Rs.42,43,000/-.  But, value is wrongly mentioned as Rs.45,60,000/-.  The complainant was constrained to spent Rs.900/- for certified copies and Rs.200/- for encumbrance certificate.

3. Even though, Assistant Registrar General adviced OP no.1 during first week of August 2020 to approach OP No.2 and rectify the mistake.  The OP No.1 failed to rectify the mistake.  The OPs are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.3,000/- towards harassment and Rs.1,100/- towards money spent by her.  Despite order dated 06.06.2020, the OPs failed to carry out the rectification.  This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint. 

4. In response to the notice, the OPs failed to appear before this Commission and they have been placed exparte.  However, the version of OP No.1 received through post on 04.10.2021 without application to set aside the order placing the OPs exparte.

5. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 16 documents.  Heard the arguments of counsel for the complainant only.

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.2:- Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Even though, OP No.1 has sent a version on 08.09.2021 by post, but no application to set aside the order placing OPs exparte is filed. 
9. The averments made in the complaint are being spoken by the complainant in support of 16 documents. Ex.P.1 is the copy of registered sale dee3d dated 07.11.2019, wherein total sale consideration is Rs.42,43,000/-.  No mistake is crept in the sale deed.  Whereas, OP No.1 issued form No.15 as per Ex.P.2 showing market value consideration as Rs.45,60,000/- which is contrary to the recital of the sale deed.  The complainant by issuing Ex.P.3 called upon the OP No.1 about mistake crept in the encumbrance certificate by letter dated 06.01.2020.  The Assistant Registrar General issued office note dated 20.05.2020 directing the OP No.1 to rectify the mistake from Rs.45,60,000/- to Rs.42,43,000/-. This complaint came to be filed on 22.07.2021, more than one year two months after official order issued by Assistant Registrar Genera of Computers to the OP No.1 as per Ex.P.4.  But, on 24.08.2020, the complainant issued a letter to OPs which has been served on both the OPs.  However, on 11.09.2020, the OP No.1 issued a reply that summary report was not brought to his notice and mistake was crept.  He further informed that the matter is seized by Registrar General for necessary action.  Later on, the complainant by issuing legal notice as per Ex.P.11 called upon the OPs to rectify the mistake.  Despite receipt of notice, the OP No.1 failed to rectify the mistake. 
10. The OP No.2 is not party to this mistake.  In view of official intimation issued as per Ex.P.4 by Assistant Registrar General of Computers dated 20.05.2020 the OP No.1 failed to take steps for rectification.  It has been intimated that Rs.1,000/- penalty shall be paid by the service provider.
11. The complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 only.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.  The complainant has spent Rs.1,100/- only for getting certified copies for which OP No.1 is liable to pay the same.
12. The complainant claims Rs.10,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.30,000/- as compensation.  Mistake is a mistake.  But, mistake has been crept unknowingly for which the claim of Rs.43,000/- as a compensation and transportation expenses is excessive.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to Rs.2,000/- only as a compensation and Rs.1,100/- towards expenses from OP No.1 only.
13. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint requires to dismissed against OP No.2.  The complaint requires to be allowed against OP No.1 only.  We have taken into consideration, the order of the National Commission in Revision Petition No.1444/2004 dated 5^th March, 2007. The complainant is entitled to Rs.1,100/- towards expenses, Rs.2,000/- as a compensation and another Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part against OP No.1 only and directed to rectify the mistake.
2. The complaint is dismissed against OP No.2.
3. OP No.1 shall pay Rs.1,100/- towards expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. 
4. The OP No.1 shall comply this order within 30 days from this date.   
5. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-