Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/105/2019

Mrs.Saraswathy,Wife of Selvam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sub Registrar of Assurances, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Tc.Rajamohan & E.c.Easwarkumar

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on :16.07.2019                                                                                Date of disposal : 12.04.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.        : PRESIDENT

                        TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,          : MEMBER-1

 

C.C. No.105/2019

 

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 12^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

  1.     Mrs. Saraswathy,

Wife of Selvam,

 

  2.     Kalaiselvi,

          Daughter of Late.Selvam,

          Both mother and daughter

          Are commonly residing at

          No.6, Vikaram Flats,

          Perambur,

          Chennai-600 011.

                                                                                                .. Complainants.   

..Vs..

 

 

The  Sub-Registrar of Assurances,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai  600 040.                                                      ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. T.S.Rajamohan &

    E.C. Easwarkumar

 

Counsel for the opposite party              : Ex-parte on 30.09.2019.

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the Opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.1,09,923/- to the complainants with 18% interest  and to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for having illegally and unlawfully withheld release of three sale Deeds all at dt:28.04.1995 vide Doc. 1216,1217 and 1218 of 1995 and cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The  Complainants state Immovable property being corner property bearing No.10 Rangamannar chetty street and Door No.4, Chidambara Mudli street in Ayanavaram village, comprised in T.S.No.127, Block No.4, measuring an extent of 2 grounds and 1734 sq.ft., was originally owned and possessed by E.Rajalakshmi and 5 others.  The Complainants further state that the above E.Rajalakshmi and 5 others, jointly and severally executed one registered power of attorney dt:28.02.1995, vide Doc.No.335/1995 in block no.4 before the SRO Sembium, to and in favour of Selvam and son of Nagarathinam and Padmavathy wife of M.D.Ramanujam, in respect of the above immovable property.  Complainants further state that by virtue of the registered power of attorney, both Selvam and Padmavathy joined together and executed one registered sale deed to and in favour of Saraswathy wife of Selvam and another under three registered sale deeds dt:28.04.1995 vide Doc.No.1218 of  1995, dt:28.04.1995 vide Doc.No.1217 of 1995, dt.28.04.1995 vide Doc.No.1216 of 1995 in respect of the above immovable property.  The Complainant further state that pertinently, the Selvam, son of Nagarathinam and Padmavathy wife of M.D.Ramanujam, proceeded to revoke and cancel the above three sale deeds vide Doc.No.1216,1217 and 1218 all dt:28.04.1995 under deeds of Revocation vide Doc.No.1294 of  1995 dt:15.05.1995, Doc.No.1295 of 1995 dt:15.05.1995, Doc.No.1317 of  1995 dt:15.05.1995.  Those revocation deeds were executed without any notice to Saraswathy and another nor they were party to the document not did they append their signatures.  His office had received the deficit stamp duty and accordingly acknowledged the same by revealing in the encumbrance certificate issued by his office dated:26.09.2012 vide No.1071 of 2012. The complainants further state that pertinently, the above registered sale deeds all dt.28.04.1995 vide doc.1216,1217 and 1218 of 1995suffered stamp duty under Sec:47-A of the stamp Act. Therefore they were not released at the first instance. The Complainants further state that more pertinently, deficit stamp duty was paid as on 27.01.2003. 

2. As stated supra when the encumbrance certificate issued by the office of the Opposite party clearly reveals that deficit stamp duty of Rs.30,560/- was paid as clearly as on 27.01.2003, together with penal interest at 2% per annum on the principal sum, it ought to have released the above sale deeds all dated:28.04.1995 vide doc.1216,1217 and 1218 of 1995.  The Complainants further state that when they through Mr. Kalidas who happens to be the son of the first Complainant and brother of second Complainant approached the office of the Opposite party by producing the above encumbrance certificate that provides details about payment of deficit stamp duty, the Opposite party insisted that proof of payment of deficit stamp duty has to be produced.  When Opposite pray were informed that since the stamp duty was paid in 2003, besides that, the husband of the first Complainant and father of second Complainant died on 25.10.2000, the  said receipt could not be retrieved. It is settled law that what is admitted need not be proved.  In the instant case, when the Opposite party has issued encumbrance certificate, testifying the fact that deficit stamp duty was paid it cannot at all insist for any further proof.  Thus it could be seen that the Opposite party withheld the above sale deeds for extraneous reasons which is absolutely illegal and unlawful. In view of the defiant stand taken by the Opposite party in refusing to releases the above sale deeds, it committed serious deficiency of service besides, illegality. Under these circumstances, the Complainants were constrained to pay deficit stamp duty in a sum of Rs.30,560/- in respect of Doc.No.1216 of 1995; Rs.41,033/- in respect of Doc.No.1217 of 1995 and Rs.30,315/- in respect of Doc.No.1218 of 1995 totaling in all Rs.1,01,908/- by drawing demand draft in favour of the Opposite party besides penalty fees of Rs.2,350/-,Rs.2500/- and Rs.2,300/- vide receipts no.265,261 and 263 of  2019, totaling in all Rs.8,015/-.  Thus the Complainants paid a total sum of Rs.1,09,923/-, by making such payment before the Reserve Bank of India on 11.01.2009 which are vouchsafed by receipts. Thus, by having paid the deficit stamp duty again, the Complainants are put to loss and the Opposite party has enriched itself in a most illegal and unlawful manner. Hence this complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs. 1,09,923/- to the complainant with 18 % interest per annum?
2.  Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-to the complainant as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what other reliefs the complainant is entitled?

 

 

4.POINT NO :1

                     According to the complainant w/o Selvam and Padmavathy joined together and executed a registered sale deed in favour of Saraswathy wife of Selvam and other three registered sale deeds bearing Doc.No.1216/1995, 1217/1995 and 1218/1995 all dated:28.04.1995.  As per power of attorney agents and those sale deeds were supported by consideration and later on without notice to Saraswathy and another the above said sale deed were revoked by Doc.no.1294 of  1995, 1295 of 1995 and 1317 of 1995 all dated:15.05.1995 and further according to the complainants the Doc.No.1216/1995, 1217/1995  and 1218/1995 suffered stamp duty u/s.47-A of the Stamp Act and therefore were not registered at the first instance and the deficit stamp duty was made on 27.01.2003 by the complainants.  Further according to the complainants the Encumbrance Certificate  issued by the Opposite party clearly reveals that payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.30,560/- on 27.01.2003 together with penal interest and hence the opposite party ought to have released the above said three sale deeds. But, when the Complainants approached the Opposite party by producing the encumbrance certificate the Opposite party insisted upon the proof of payment of deficit stamp duty and it was informed by the complainant that the stamp duty was paid on 27.01.2003.  Meanwhile the husband of the 1^st complainant died on 25.10.2000, and therefore the receipts could not be traced and thereafter according to the complainants again the deficit stamp duty was  paid, totally Rs.1,09,923/- for the above said three sale deeds before Reserve Bank of India on 11.01.2019 for which the receipts were filed along with complaint and thereafter the sale deeds were released by the opposite party and therefore the complainant contended that inspite of the entry in  the encumbrance certificate  testifying the payment of deficit stamp duty the Opposite party refused to release the sale deeds which amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore the amount paid by the Complainants on 11.01.2019 was prayed  to be refunded to the complainants. 

                  5. Complainant had filed proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to A10 were marked on the complainant side.  The Opposite party remained Ex-parte. 

                  6. Ex.A1 to A3 were the sale deeds with Doc.No.1216/1995, 1217/1995  and 1218/1995 which were all dated:28.04.1995.  Ex.A4 to A6 were revocation deeds.  The downloaded Encumbrance Certificate was marked as Ex.A7.  The Complainants mainly relied upon this document and particularly Page No. 107 of Ex.A7 wherein there is a recital that a sum of Rs. 30,560/- with interest has to be paid as deficit stamp duty and further there is a recital that the amount was paid on 27.01.2003 based on this document the counsel for the complainants submitted that already the deficit stamp duty was paid for all the three documents on 27.01.2003.  But, again the complainants was forced to pay once again on 11.01.2019 which amounted to deficiency in service.  But, on perusal of Ex.A7 it is found that Ex.A7 is not a complete document and it does not contain entire portion of Encumbrance certificate.  Further there is no proof to show that this Rs.30,560/- was paid for doc.no.1216 of 1995.  On the other hand in Ex.A7 Doc.No. 1217/1995 is shown.   There is mentioning in Ex.A7 about the payment of deficit stamp duty for the three documents on 11.01.2019.  If really the payment made in 2003 is true in Ex.A8 legal notice, there is no mention about the payment of deficit stamp duty on 27.01.2003 which was notice issued by the complainant at the earlier point of time. In Ex.A7 there is no mention about the payment of deficit stamp duty on 27.01.2003 for the other two sale deeds. There is no explanation for this on the complainant’s side. It is for the complainants to prove by producing necessary receipts for payment of deficit stamp duty on 27.01.2003.  But, the complainants has not filed the same.  The Complainants are not entitled to claim that the deficit stamp duty was paid in 2003 based on entry found in Ex.A7 which is not a complete document as stated earlier.  Further, there is no entries in Ex.A7 with regard to payment of stamp duty in respect of other two documents.  Moreover, the amount alleged to be paid in Ex.A7 also does not tally with document number. The reason stated by the complainants for non-filing of receipts to prove payment of stamp duty in the year 2003 is not valid and bonafide. The complainants failed to prove that there is deficiency in service by the Opposite party. In the absence of documentary proof evidencing payment of stamp duty by the complainants in the year 2003 it cannot be contended by the complainants, that they were again forced to pay stamp duty in the 2019. Therefore the complainants are not entitled for the refund of Rs. 1,09,923/- with interest as claimed in the complaint and Point no.1 is answered accordingly. 

7. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service by the Opposite party, the complainants are not entitled for compensation of Rs. 5 lacks as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

 8. POINT NO :3

Based on findings given to point no. 1 and 2 complainants are not entitled for any relief claimed in the complaint.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 12^th day of April 2022.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	28.04.1995	Sale Deed vide document No.1216 of 1995 in favour of the complainants.
Ex.A2	28.04.1995	Sale Deed vide document No.1217 of 1995 in favour of the complainants.
Ex.A3	28.04.1995	Sale Deed vide document No.1218 of 1995 in favour of the complainants.
Ex.A4	15.05.1995	Revocation Deed vide document No.1294 of 1995 to Sale Deed vide Document No.1216 of 1995.
Ex.A5	15.05.1995	Revocation Deed vide document No.1295 of 1995 to Sale Deed vide Document No.1217 of 1995.
Ex.A6	15.05.1995	Revocation Deed vide document No.1317 of 1995 to Sale Deed vide Document No.1218 of 1995.
Ex.A7		Encumbrance certificate downloaded from Internet.
Ex.A8	20.11.2018	Complainant’s lawyer notice to Opposite party.
Ex.A9	29.12.2018	Complainant’s lawyer notice to Opposite party.
Ex.A10	11.01.2019	Payment Receipt.

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                          -NIL-

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT