O R D E R :-( per Mr. B.R. Chandel, President )
The complainant Yash Pal on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be to pay a directed to a compensation of Rupees one lac for mental harassment and agony on the ground that on 30-01-2013 he presented a mortgage deed for registration before opposite party No.3 who marked the same to Registration Clerk and Data Operator i.e. to the opposite parties No.1 and 2. He visited the opposite parties No.1 and 2 several times for getting the same registered but in vain. In the first week of November, 2013 he approached the opposite parties No.1 to 3 on which date the opposite party No.3 asked the opposite party No.2 to feed the mortgage deed but he did not bother. He is a military person and has spent more than Rupees 5,000/- for getting the said mortgage deed registered at the instance of opposite parties No.1 and 2, but the opposite parties intentionally, deliberately and negligently misplaced the mortgage deed and thereby caused harassment and mental agony to him and the Punjab National Bank refused to release the balance of the loan amount, as a result of which he could not complete the construction work of his house due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The opposite parties have disputed the said claim and have set up the defence that the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer as as per Consumer Protection Act. The complainant never produced any document before the opposite party No.3 nor the complainant ever visited the opposite parties No.1 and 2, hence no question of intentionally and deliberately misplacing the mortgage deed arise at all. Even on 07-11-2013 the opposite party No.1 was not present in the office and had gone for training to Revenue Training Institute, Joginder Nagar, and as such the complaint is not maintainable.
3. The complainant has claimed that he produced the mortgage deed for registration before opposite party No.3 but he failed to register the same and to the contrary opposite parties No.1 to 3 misplaced the same which amounts to deficiency in service. The said fact is disputed by the opposite parties and the opposite parties have set up the defence that the complainant never produced any mortgage deed for registration nor he falls within the definition of the consumer.
4. No relief has been claimed against the opposite parties No.4 and 5.
5. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are the Government Servants and performing the statutory functions. A person, who seeks registration of the mortgage deed, sale deed or gift deed etc. from the Sub-Registrar or Registrar under the provisions of Registration Act is not a ‘consumer’ nor the Sub Registrar or the Registrar is a service provider. Such deeds are registered by the Sub Registrar or Registrar in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Registration Act or the rules made thereunder. The registration fee or the stamp duty which is charged by the Government is not a consideration for registration of such document, but is in the form of tax or fee payable by the concerned for making use of the government machinery and keeping the record upto date and as such the registration of the mortgage deed or any other deed is not a service rendered by the service provider within the meaning of the Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In case of refusal to register a document or if a document is wrongly registered, the remedy lies under the Indian Registration Act itself which is a self contained code. In case the such Authority negligently handed over a document or have intentionally or deliberately or negligently missed the document or tampered with the same in any manner, they can be proceeded against under the service laws or by taking recourse to criminal proceedings, but in the opinion of this Forum the complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable as the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its registration and due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT
ON THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015
(B.R. Chandel )
President
(Th. Digvijay Singh) ( Sushma Sharma)
Member Member
