Karnataka

Gadag

CC/39/2016

Sri Malayya.V.Hiremath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thesildar, Gadag - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Patil

06 Aug 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OP. 

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant

Obtain the order from Hon’ble civil judge senior division court at gadag bearing no 110/1999 on 22.01.2001, According to the RS no 27/09 and 27/01 the court had ordered to delete the name of No1 Mruttunjaya, No2 Murgayya, No3 Mallayya, No4 Doddayya S/o Totayya Hucheshwaramath from column no 9 in RR, The complainant  enclosed the order copy with his application to delete the above said names and submitted to the Op on 24.04.2015, The office of the Op acknowledged the same and issued an acknowledgment on 01.08.2015 and informed the complainant to visit the office on 04.08.2015 and collected the amount of Rs135 towards mutation charges for which a cash receipt had been issued. After two months when the complainant visited the Op’s office and enquired about the mutation the Ops office have not muted the record as per the order of the court the complainant had visited the Ops office Offenly to get the work is done but The Ops have not obelizing him and neglected to do the work. As per the rules, The OP have to muted the names within 45 days after collecting the fees from the applicant. But the Op had failed to do so hence the Op had committed deficiency in service.

 

          3.      The Complainant prayed the forum to direct the OP to delete the names in column no 9 of RR as per the court order. And pay Rs 5,000,00/- towards the mental agony and harassment and other order the forum dean fit.

 

4.      The Complaint was registered and notice was issued to OP. The OP is remained absent.

 

5.      On the back ground of the above said pleadings, the Complainant himself examined before this Forum as CW-1 and got marked the documents as EX C1 to C9. The documents are as follows:

1)  EX C1 the copy of Legal noticed issued by the complainant to the OP,

2)  EX C2 Postal receipt

3)  EX C3 Postal Acknowledgment,

4)  EX C4 Cash paid receipt,

5) EX C5 Application written by the complainant to OP,

6)  EX C6 Order copy of the court,

7)  EX C7 Decree of the court,

8) EX C8 and EX C9 Records of right 2 in number.

 

6.      On the basis of above said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant proves that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Affirmative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

7.      POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

8.   The Complainant filed a complaint against the Op alleging that the OP find a suit at the Hon’ble civil judge senior division Gadag, Bearing OS number 110/1999, According to the order, Complainant filed an application before the Op to delete the names of No1 Mruttunjaya, No2 Murgayya, No3 Mallayya, No4 Doddayya S/o Totayya Hucheshwaramath in column no 9 of RR, To show that the complainant had produced the order copy and decree copy of the above said suit the documents had been marked as EX C6 and EX C7, The said Mruttunjaya , Murgayya, Mallayya and Doddayya filed a declaration suit before the Hon’ble Civil judge senior division Gadag which was dismissed by the Hon’bnle court accordingly, The complainant filed an application before the Op on 24.07.2015 OP had acknowledged the same, moreover complainant paid Rs 135/- on 04.08.2015 Towards the mutation fee’s document marked as EX C4 which clearly reveals that the Op had received the amount and not came forward to do his work done as per the rules. Complainant issued a legal notice to the OP, which had been received by the OP, For this the complainant filed a copy of legal notice marked as EX C1 postal receipt no EX C2 and postal acknowledgment EX C3.

 

9.      The Op or his authorized agent failed to appear before this forum after receiving the notice from the forum and also the  Op had not showing any interest to reply the same, As per the EX C6, 7 and 4 it clearly reveals that the complainant made an effort by paying required fee for deleting the names of No1 Mruttunjaya, No2 Murgayya, No3 Mallayya, No4 Doddayya S/o Totayya Hucheshwaramath from column no 9 in RR, Therefore, it is clear case of a deficiency in service on the part of OP.

                                                                           

 

 

 

   10.      Therefore, it can be presumed that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Op. The complainant claimed for physical, mental agony and harassment of Rs 5,00,000/- including deficiency in service, hence we are of the Opinion that it is just and proper to answer the Point no 1 and 2 in affirmative

  11.     POINT NO.3: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass a following:  

 

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partially allowed.
2. OP is directed to delete the names of 1 Mruttunjaya, 2 Murgayya, 3 Mallayya, 4 Doddayya S/o Totayya Hucheshwaramath from column no 9 in RR of RS 27/09 and 27/01 of Harthi village Gadag Taluk & district.
3. OP is directed to pay Rs 5,000/- Towards Mental agony and harassment, made to the complainant by committing deficiency in service
4. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 6^th day of August, 2016)

 

 

Member

Member

President