The Sub Registrar Raichur V/S Srinivas Rao S/o. Satyanarayana Rao - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 89/07

Srinivas Rao S/o. Satyanarayana Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sub Registrar Raichur - Opp.Party(s)

Shrikanth

14 Dec 2007

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 89/07

Srinivas Rao S/o. Satyanarayana Rao						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The District Registrar, Raichur The Government of Karnataka Deputy Commissioner The Inspector General and Commissioner of Stamps The Sub Registrar Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

ORDER Perused the complaint and heard learned counsel for the complainant on admission of the complaint for enquiry. Main grievance of the complainant is that on 28-08-07 he had been to the office of OP.No-1 for Registration of Mortgage deed in favour of KSFC for sanction of term loan of Rs. 20 Lakhs for establishments of Industrial/Commercial shop the OP. No.1 collected Registration Fees of Rs. 10,725/- instead of Rs. 2,000/- as per Government Order No. CI/319/SPI/2005 Bangalore dt. 26-08-06 and thus OP.No-1 has collected excess fees of Rs. 8,725/- against the said Government Order which is valid upto 2011. In-spite of furnishing the copy of Certificate issued by Industrial & Commercial Department on the basis of said Government Order the OP.No-1 without giving any consideration to it has collected excess amount from him. As per the said G.O. that any person who so ever avails loan from KSFC for establishment of Industrial/Business concern and for that registration of legal documents are totally exempted from payment of entire Stamp duty and Registration Fees is to be charged at the rate of Re. 1/- for value of Rs. 1,000/-. Since the complainant has availed loan of Rs. 20 Lakhs he is totally exempted from Stamp Duty and Registration Fees has to be charged at Rs. 2,000/-. But the OP.No-1 has collected excess Registration Fees of Rs. 8,725/- which is totally against the G.O. Even the submission made by him to OP.No-2 the higher Officer of OP.No-1 in vain and even Ops 1 to 4 have not taken any steps or replied to his legal notice got issued through his counsel. Hence the attitude of the Ops 1 to 4 amounts to deficiency in service. 2. In Para-5 of the complaint it is stated that OP.No-1 has issued Receipt bearing No. 4211 dt. 28-08-07 for the collected amount of Rs. 10,725/- and has produced a xerox copy of the Receipt which shows that OP.No-1 has collected Rs. 10,000/- towards Registration Fees, Rs. 35/- towards Verification Fees (Parishodhana) and Rs. 690/- towards Scanning Fees totaling to Rs. 10,725/-. 3. The complainant has produced copy of certificate/letter dt. 27-08-07 issued by the Joint Director of District Industrial Center Raichur which shows the exemption of Stamp Duty for Registration of Mortgage deed etc., for the loan obtained by the complainant for establishment of Industrial/Commercial shop as per the G.O. No. CI/319/SPI/2005 Bangalore dt. 26-08-06. It also shows the concession of Registration Fees at the rate of Re. 1/- per Rs. 1,000/- of value and the complainant is entitled for such benefit. 4. The complainant has also produced office copy of legal notice dt. 03-09-07 addressed to the OP.No-1 and copy of which is marked to Ops No-2 to 4 under RPAD which have been served on them vide postal acknowledgement. The complainant has also produced a copy of letter dt. 06-09-07 marked to him by OP.No-2 addressed to OP.No-1 calling upon OP.No-1 explain in the matter contained in the legal notice, within (7) days without giving scope for reminder. This letter shows that OP.No-2 has set the action in-motion on the legal notice of complainant. Admittedly legal notice is addressed to OP.No-1 and only a copy of which is marked to OP.No-2 to OP.No-4. So the complainant ought to have made enquiry with OP.No-2 in the matter since his legal notice was addressed to OP.No-1 only. So, without approaching OP.No-2 in the matter the complainant has approached this Forum. His approach with OP.No-2 would have set the matter in rest as to the legality or otherwise of charging of the fees of Rs. 10,725/-. Hence when this matter is still pending with OP.No-2, we feel it justified to hold that this complaint is rather premature one without giving rise to the alleged deficiency in service. 5. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complaint is premature one without giving scope for deficiency in service. So the complaint deserves to be and the same is hereby rejected U/s. 12(3 ) of the Act. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

ORDER Perused the complaint and heard learned counsel for the complainant on admission of the complaint for enquiry. Main grievance of the complainant is that on 28-08-07 he had been to the office of OP.No-1 for Registration of Mortgage deed in favour of KSFC for sanction of term loan of Rs. 20 Lakhs for establishments of Industrial/Commercial shop the OP. No.1 collected Registration Fees of Rs. 10,725/- instead of Rs. 2,000/- as per Government Order No. CI/319/SPI/2005 Bangalore dt. 26-08-06 and thus OP.No-1 has collected excess fees of Rs. 8,725/- against the said Government Order which is valid upto 2011. In-spite of furnishing the copy of Certificate issued by Industrial & Commercial Department on the basis of said Government Order the OP.No-1 without giving any consideration to it has collected excess amount from him. As per the said G.O. that any person who so ever avails loan from KSFC for establishment of Industrial/Business concern and for that registration of legal documents are totally exempted from payment of entire Stamp duty and Registration Fees is to be charged at the rate of Re. 1/- for value of Rs. 1,000/-. Since the complainant has availed loan of Rs. 20 Lakhs he is totally exempted from Stamp Duty and Registration Fees has to be charged at Rs. 2,000/-. But the OP.No-1 has collected excess Registration Fees of Rs. 8,725/- which is totally against the G.O. Even the submission made by him to OP.No-2 the higher Officer of OP.No-1 in vain and even Ops 1 to 4 have not taken any steps or replied to his legal notice got issued through his counsel. Hence the attitude of the Ops 1 to 4 amounts to deficiency in service. 2. In Para-5 of the complaint it is stated that OP.No-1 has issued Receipt bearing No. 4211 dt. 28-08-07 for the collected amount of Rs. 10,725/- and has produced a xerox copy of the Receipt which shows that OP.No-1 has collected Rs. 10,000/- towards Registration Fees, Rs. 35/- towards Verification Fees (Parishodhana) and Rs. 690/- towards Scanning Fees totaling to Rs. 10,725/-. 3. The complainant has produced copy of certificate/letter dt. 27-08-07 issued by the Joint Director of District Industrial Center Raichur which shows the exemption of Stamp Duty for Registration of Mortgage deed etc., for the loan obtained by the complainant for establishment of Industrial/Commercial shop as per the G.O. No. CI/319/SPI/2005 Bangalore dt. 26-08-06. It also shows the concession of Registration Fees at the rate of Re. 1/- per Rs. 1,000/- of value and the complainant is entitled for such benefit. 4. The complainant has also produced office copy of legal notice dt. 03-09-07 addressed to the OP.No-1 and copy of which is marked to Ops No-2 to 4 under RPAD which have been served on them vide postal acknowledgement. The complainant has also produced a copy of letter dt. 06-09-07 marked to him by OP.No-2 addressed to OP.No-1 calling upon OP.No-1 explain in the matter contained in the legal notice, within (7) days without giving scope for reminder. This letter shows that OP.No-2 has set the action in-motion on the legal notice of complainant. Admittedly legal notice is addressed to OP.No-1 and only a copy of which is marked to OP.No-2 to OP.No-4. So the complainant ought to have made enquiry with OP.No-2 in the matter since his legal notice was addressed to OP.No-1 only. So, without approaching OP.No-2 in the matter the complainant has approached this Forum. His approach with OP.No-2 would have set the matter in rest as to the legality or otherwise of charging of the fees of Rs. 10,725/-. Hence when this matter is still pending with OP.No-2, we feel it justified to hold that this complaint is rather premature one without giving rise to the alleged deficiency in service. 5. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complaint is premature one without giving scope for deficiency in service. So the complaint deserves to be and the same is hereby rejected U/s. 12(3 ) of the Act. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.