Misc. Application Case No. 34/2020 .

                                          (Arising out of C.C. No. 141/2019)  

        Complainant                                                Opposite Parties

 Swarup Maddune                                     Vs.                The District Registrar & Others                       

Date of Filing: 17.02.2020.                                           Date of Disposal: 18.08.2022.  

Order No. 20 Date: 18.08.2022.

                        Today is fixed for passing order in respect of M.A. Case being No. 34/2020.

Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 pointed out that being the Ld. A.G.P. he appeared by memo of appearance.

            Complainant and the OP Nos. 1 & 2 file haziras through their Ld. Advocates.

            M.A case being No. 34/2020 is taken up for passing order.

            OP Nos. 1 & 2 has filed a petition praying for passing appropriate order by dismissing the case as not maintainable in law on the grounds that in the Written Versions of OP Nos. 1 & 2 at Paragraphs Nos. 15 & 16, they stated that the complaint is barred by limitation as well as the complainant is not a consumer under the OP Nos. 1 & 2 as per the Consumer Protection Act and Rules framed there in.

            The Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in Para 15 of the Written Version stated that these OPs are Government Authorities and on receipt of stamp duty and registration fee as per Statute, these OPs registered the documents and issued I.G.R. They have acted as per the Statute and Rules framed therein. As such the complainant cannot be treated as a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Rules framed therein. The complainant never hired or availed of any service for a consideration. The complainant paid only requisite fees as per Stamp Act and Registration Act and Rules framed therein which cannot be treated as consideration. He further stated in Para 16 of the W/V that I.G.R has been issued on 20.04.2007 and as per allegation of the complainant , though not admitted, the complainant for the first time appeared on 20.12.2010 , the alleged  representation was made on 05.06.2017 and therefore, the complaint is hopelessly barred by Limitation as per the Consumer Protection Act.

            Copy served to other side.

            Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 cited decisions reported in 2007 3CPR (NC) 25 and 2009 (6) Supreme 421 in support of their claim.

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant raised strong objection and submitted that the cause of

Action arose on and from 20.04.2007 when the Sale Deed was registered in the office of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and then the original I.G.R of the Sale Deed was kept before the OP No.2 for mortgaging the property to take loan and thereafter, the complainant tried his best to collect the said Sale Deed in question from the office of the OP No.2,  met a number of days to the OP No.2  and lastly met the OP No.1 on 01.06.2017  and made a representation on 05.06.2017 and the OP Nos. 1 & 2 failed to settle the said matter till today. As such the cause of action is in continuing one. Therefore, he submitted that the suit is not barred by limitation under the Consumer Protection Act. He further submitted that the complainant is also a Consumer under the OP Nos. 1 & 2 as because he has provided fee of stamp during registration of the Sale Deed to them and filed a Xerox copy of receipt of I.G.R dt. 20.04.2007 and on 05.06.2017 he submitted an application before the OPs for supplying the original Deed.

            As regards the Limitation Point , it is found that the case has been lodged  on 05.09.2019 and as per Xerox copy of receipt dt. 20.04.2007 and representation dt. 05.06.2017 the complainant prayed for supplying the original Sale Deed before the OP Nos. 1 & 2 but till date they failed to deliver the said Sale Deed to the Complainant and as such the cause of action is in continuing one. This explanation regarding cause of action has been given by the complainant in Para 11 of the complaint and finding no other alternative, the complainant has filed this case on 05.09.2019. On the other hand, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 stated that the last representation was made on 05.06.2017 and from the said date the complaint was lodged beyond the period of limitation. But it is crystal clear from the Written Version of OP Nos. 1 & 2      and the complaint of the complainant that the registered Sale Deed has not yet been delivered to the complainant. No scrap of paper is forthcoming to show that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 tried to mitigate the problem suffered by the complainant in not getting the registered Sale Deed. Therefore, the explanation in Para 11 of the complaint clearly indicates that the cause of action is in continuing one. Therefore, the submissions of the Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 that the case is barred by Limitation cannot be accepted.

            As regards, the “Consumer’ under the OP Nos. 1 & 2 , the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in Para 15 stated that they are Government Authorities  and on receipt of stamp duty and registration fees as per Statute , issued I.G.R and they have acted as per Statute and Rules framed therein. The complainant never hired or availed of any service for a consideration, he only paid requisite fees as per Stamp Act and Registration Act and Rules framed therein and accordingly, the complainant cannot be treated as a ‘Consumer’ under the OP Nos. 1 & 2 as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            But the complainant submitted that he paid requisite fees and I.G.R for which Xerox copy has been filed and he paid Rs.681/- for deed value of the properly of Rs.60, 000/ on 20.04.2007. The question arose whether this payment by the said receipt can be treated as hire or avail of any service for a consideration from the OP Nos. 1 & 2.

            Admittedly, the complainant paid Rs.681/- for the duty value of property of Rs.60, 000/- for registration according to Stamp Act and Registration Act and Rules framed therein and as such by payment of the stamp duty under the Stamp Act and Registration Act for the registration of the Sale Deed, with regard to property specially immovable, cannot be treated as consideration money given to the Government Authority to hire or avail of their service. There may be negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Registration Authority into a service provider for a consideration, nor convert the complainant into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. As such the complainant is not a “Consumer” of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 under the Consumer Protection Act and the case is not maintainable in law against the OP Nos. 1 & 2.

            Hence, it is

                                                       ORDERED

That the M.A. case being No. 34/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest but without any cost.

            The M.A. Case being No. 34/2020 is thus disposed of.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.
 

     Dictated & corrected by me.

                      President

     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.

                     Member                                                                    President

     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.                                     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman