BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Tuesday, 23rd February 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 85/ 2015
Shaik Mohammad Habibulla, S/o Chand Basha,
aged about 46 years, Muslim, Residing at D.No. 6/1034,
R.S. road, Rajampet Post and mandal,
YSR Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Sub-Registrar, O/o Sub-Registrar office,
Stamps and Registration, R.S. road, Near DSP Office,
Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District.
2. The District Registrar, O/o the District Registrar,
Stamps and Registration, Old RIMS, Near 7 roads,
YSR / Kadapa District. …..Respondents.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 17-2-2016 in the presence of Sri G.M.B. Murali Krishna, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Subramanyam, Govt. Pleader for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct respondents to pay ₹ 14320/- together with interest at 24% p.a. from 14-3-2013 till realization deposited amount towards registration charges, to pay ₹ 50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service, ₹ 50,000/- towards damages for mental agony and ₹ 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant purchased some property on 14-3-2013 and got prepared draft sale deed for registration and submitted the same to R1 and he also deposited an amount of ₹ 14,320/- in S.B.I Rajampet branch towards registration charges and obtained challan from the said bank and submitted the same to R1 for registration of the document. But subsequently disputes arose between vendor of the complainant and her relatives regarding scheduled property of the sale deed and the process of registration of the said property was not carried out. The vendor of the complainant returned the sale consideration. But the sub-registrar, Rajampet i.e. R1 not returned challan amount. The complainant made number oral requests and written submission to R1 authorities for refund of amount of ₹ 14,320/- but not returned. The complainant issued registered letter on 27-5-2013 and also another letter on 30-4-2014 for refund of the said amount, still not returned. But he received copy of letter endorsed by R2 to R1 that the challan pending register as well as current challan register was not sent to R2 by R1 to refund the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs for deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed counter and the same was adopted by R2 by filing memo. It is contended by R1 that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning C.P. Act. The allegations were not true and correct regarding deficiency of service on their part.
4. It is further averred that the complainant paid an amount of ₹ 14,300/- by way of challan for getting registration of the property. But subsequently, the transaction was abandoned at the instant of the complainant. The complainant submitted a representation to R1 for return of challan or refund of challan amount. R1 had communicated the same to R2 for necessary steps. Consequently, R2 issued proceedings for the refund of challan amount through proper channel in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down in registration act. The refund of challan amount will be done through Tahsildar, Rajampet. So R2 issued proceedings to R1 to take steps in accordance with the rules and regulations and R1 communicated the same to the Tahsildar, Rajampet requesting him to refund the challana amount to the complainant, on his request and the complainant was informed about the procedure to get challan amount. But the complainant never approached or requested Tahsildar, Rajampet for refund of challan amount. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents in performing their duties. But the complainant himself either willfully or intentionally not followed procedure explained to him for refund of challan amount. Though the complainant knows well about the procedure for refund of challan amount, intentionally involved the duty bound government officials into dispute and harassing them mentally and obstructing them to their duties. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against the respondents?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A9 documents are marked and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Exs. B1 to B6 documents are marked.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments field by them.
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that the respondents failed to refund of challan amount deposited for registration as due to delay in sending the order for refund of the amount. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs.
9. Per contra it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the respondents explained the procedure to get refund of challan amount from the Tahsildar, Rajampet but the complainant never approached Tahsildar, Rajampet to get refund of amount instead of filing this false complaint. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents except common procedural delay. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for respondents to hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents and consequently the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs.
11. There is no dispute that the complainant approached for registration of certain document of sale deed by depositing challan amount of ₹ 14,320/- by way of bank challan and produced the same in respondent No.1’s office on 14-3-2013. But somehow, in view of disputes between the complainant and vendor and her relatives the registration was not done. The complainant approached R1’s office for refund of the registration fee deposited by him by way of bank challan. However, R1 informed him about procedure to get refund of amount from the Tahsildar, Rajampet concerned. But it appears that the complainant never approached Tahsildar for refund of challan amount. As seen from the documents filed by the complainant Exs. A4 and A7, dt. 27-5-2013 and 6-3-2014 reveals that he made representation to the R1 to get refund the amount of ₹ 14,320/- deposited by him towards registration charges. As seen from Ex. A9 the District Registrar Office sent endorsement to the Sub-registrar, Rajampet marking copy to the complainant to refund the amount challan register and current challan copy has to be sent to him. So the documents filed by the complainant Exs. A4, A6 and A9 shows R1, after Ex. A6 addressed to R2 for refund of amount as per procedure laid down under the act for refund of registration fee of the complainant.
12. Ex. B2 is the endorsement of Sub-registrar office dt. 01-4-2014 submitted to the District Registrar Office, Kadapa. As seen from this document he clearly mentioned that the complainant submitted application for refund of registration fee and user chares and receipt and challan relating to the payment amount at S.B.I is enclosed. Thereafter, Ex. B3 proceedings was issued by District Registrar on 13-10-2015 for refund of the amount of registration fee and user charges to the complainant on the basis of non-utilization certificate issued by R1. Ex. B5 is the certificate dt. 1-4-2014 issued by R1 and sent to the Tahsildar, Rajampet. The complainant is eligible for refund of the amount. Ex. B6 is the letter dt. 15-10-2015 addressed by R1 to Tahsildar, Rajampet to refund the challan amount as early as possible. So as seen from the documents filed both parties the respondents followed the procedure for refund of the amount deposited by complainant by way of challan for registration. Of course there may be some delay in issuing proceedings and order by the respondents to Thasildar, Rajampet for refund of challan amount i.e. only a common administrative delay. There is no intentional lapses on the part of respondents in issuing the proceedings to the Tahsildar. On the other hand even though the complainant knows for refund of amount deposited by him by way of bank challan he never approached Tahsildar, Rajampet by submitting an application for refund of amount even after 01-4-2014 or 13-10-2015. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents in issuing the proceedings for refund of amount. Since the Tahsildar, Rajampet alone is competent to refund the amount deposited in Government account for registration and the respondents have already issued proceedings for refund of the challan amount to the complainant by Tahsildar, Rajanpet, we hold that the complainant is not entitled for huge reliefs claimed against the respondents and complainant is at liberty to approach the Tahsildar, Rajampet for refund of amount as already proceedings were issued directing him to refund the amount. Thus in view of the above reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered against the complainant.
13. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 23rd February 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 P/c of Sale Deed Dt. 14-3-2013.
Ex: A2 P/c of S.B.I. Bank Challan, Rajampet for Rs.14,320/-.
Ex: A3 P/c of Receipt, S.B.I., Rajampet for Rs.14,320/-.
Ex: A4 P/c of letter issued to Sub- Registrar Office, Dt. 27-5-2013.
Ex: A5 Original Postal Receipt, Dt. 27-5-2013.
Ex: A6 Postal acknowledgement received by Sub-Registrar Dt. 25-8-2013.
Ex: A7 P/c of reminder letter issued to Sub- Registrar Office, dt. 6-3-2014.
Ex: A8 Postal Receipt, Dt. 6-3-2014.
Ex: A9 P/c of the endorsement letter issued by the R1 & R2,dt. 30-4-2014.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent. No.1.
Ex:B1 P/c of legal notice issued by the complainant dated 6-3-2014.
Ex:B2 P/c of endorsement no. Refunds/1/2014, Dt. 1-4-2014.
Ex:B3 P/c of Proceeding No.E1/543/2014, Dt. 13-10-2015.
Ex:B4 P/c of Endorsement No.E1/543/2014, Dt. 30-4-2014.
Ex:B5 P/c of Certificate dated 1-4-2014 issued by the Sub-Registrar Office,
Rajampet.
Ex:B6 P/c of letter dated 15-10-2015 issued by the Sub-Registrar,
Rajampet.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri GMB Muralikrishna, Advocate for complainant
- Sri P. Subramanyam, Govt. Pleader for respondents
B.V.P.
