CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
CC No. 297/09
Monday, the 24th day of October, 2011.
Petitioner : Pradeep,
Nedumparambil
Lakkattoor P.O
Kooroppada
(By Adv. K.A Prasad)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Village Officer,
Kooroppada Village Office
2) The Thasildar
Taluk Office,
Kottayam
3) The Kerala State
reptd. by Dist. Collector,
Kottayam.
(By Addl.Govt. Pleader
Francis Thomas)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed 5..10..2009 is as follows:
Petitioner approached the first opposite party for effecting the mutation of oodukoor right of the petitioner’s fathers property transferred in the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner first opposite party processed the application and sent it to the second opposite party for further steps. Second opposite party on several times call the petitioner to the office of the second opposite party and later the application for effecting mutation was rejected without any legal reasons. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in not mutating the property in the name of the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. So he prays for direction to the first and second opposite party to mutate oodukoor right of the petitioner’s father in
-2-
the name of the petition. Petitioner claims Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed joint version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer as far as opposite partys concerned. There is no deficiency in service and the petitioner has no cause of action against opposite parties. As per rules, if the thandapper is in the name of 2 persons and if one of the person transfers the property to another person that persons name can be included in the place of the transferor of the property along with existing thandaper holder. In this case in the title deed executed in favour of the petitioner, it is stated that the property tax should be paid in the name of the petitioner himself. That wording is against the mutation rules and that is why mutation was not effected along with existing thandaper holder. In the presents case only half of the oodukoor right was transferred in the name of the petitioner . So mutation cannot be effect in the name of the petitioner . According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service. So, opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner .
-3-
Point No. 1
According to the opposite party, petitioner is not a consumer. Second opposite party rejected the application of the petitioner on the power conferred under the statute. If petitioner is of the view that said finding is not correct or it is not in accordance with the law. Petitioner has the right to file an appeal before the RDO, as per section 18(1)of transfer of registry rules.
“Consumer” is defined in section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as any person (i) Buys any goods for consideration, which has been paid or promise or party paid or partly promise or under deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration (ii) Hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised and includes any
beneficiary of such service other than the person, who hires or avails of the service.
Here admittedly dispute in hands is with regard to the order made by the second opposite party based on the power conferred to him by statute. So, there is no hiring of a service for consideration. So, the petitioner cannot be termed as a consumer as defined in the section 2 (d) ii of Consumer Protection Act. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2 & 3
In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is dismissed.
The order of the fora will not take away right of the petitioner from filing an appeal as per section 18 (1) of transfer of registry rules 1966.
-4-
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of October , 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner:
Ext. A1: Copy of the settlement deed No. 93/2009
Ext. A2: Copy of the notice Dtd: 9..6..2009 issued by the V.O,
Kooroppada.
Documents for the opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
