Date of Filing : 04.01.2021
Date of Disposal: 21.06.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L. ..… MEMBER-I
THIRU P.MURUGAN, B.Com, ….. MEMBER-II
CC. No.06/2021
THIS TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2022
S.Sundarajan, S/o. Late Subramani,
No.110, NGGO Colony,
Periyakuppam, H/o Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur Taluk & District. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registration Office, Kunrattur,
Kanchipuram District.
2.District Registration Office,
North Chennai, Kuralagam, Chennai.
3.Additional Registrar,
Guindy District Registration Office, Guindy.
4.Inspector general of Registration,
No.100, Santhome Road,
Mullaima Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai -28. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.S.Sushilkumar , Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 30.05.2022 in the presence of Mr.S.Sushilkumar Advocate, counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set ex-parte and upon hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards Advocate fees.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It is the case of the complainant that he is a senior citizen and one of the legal heir of Mrs. Padmavathi who purchased the plot no.16 measuring 2400 sq.ft bearing survey No.207 in Mandhanandapuram Village on 10.02.1988 and the same was registered before SRO Kuralagam. The said Padmavathi settled certain part of the property to her Daughter one Mrs. Buvaneswari vide document No.10415/11 on 24.08.2011. The said Buvaneswari after obtaining permission from the Competent Authority put a consturction and was residing there and Padmavathi intended to settle the remaining parts to her Daughter one Mrs.Sujatha but Mrs.Padmavathi died on 28.03.2018. Thereafter the complainant and four daughters of the deceased executed a general power of attorney in favour of the complainant on 19.03.2013 on the file of SRO Thiruvallur. As power holder of daughters the complainant executed a sale deed in favour of Mrs.Sujatha on 25.04.2019 before SRO Kunrathur. However on verification from the 1st opposite party it was informed that the doucment was kept pending for non disclosure of entry about the parent document in encumbrance certificate. The complainant made a complaint to the DRO, Chennai North who informed that it was sent to Saidapet SRO and for which the complainant visited the SRO Saidapet where it is informed that all the documents will be available in Guindy Registrar Office. As the 1st opposite party’s office was started functioning only on 01.09.1989 all the documents executed prior to 01.09.1989 were sent to Guindy Registrar Office to upload the entry but the 3rd opposite party failed to do so. From 30.04.2019 to 07.07.2019 the opposite parties had not responded to the request of complainant and made to run the complainant from pillar to post. The complainant also sent a noitce dated 25.06.2019 to the Joint Registrar, SRO South Chennai calling upon to include the entry of sale deed dated 10.02.1988 registered before SRO Kuralagam. On 08.07.2019 when the complainant applied for encumbrance certificate the entry was not uploaded till 08.07.2019. Due to non uploading of the entry, a partition deed dated 22.01.2007 vide document No.553/2007 before SRO Kunrathur was also registered by the legal heir of Palani who had no right to create a partition deed with regard to plot. Thus the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as mentioned above.
Point for consideration:
1.Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not uploading the entry dated 10.02.1988 registered with SRO, Kuralagam?
2.if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
In proof of the allegations of deficiency in service against the opposite parties the complainant filed the following documents;
The subject sale deed dated 10.02.1988 executed by Palani Mudaliyar in favour of Padmavathi and registered with SRO Chennai North was marked as Ex.A1;
The Patta No.1664 issued for the property in survey No.207/1A1B was marked as Ex.A2;
The death certificate issued for the death of Padmavathi dated 05.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
Legal heirs certificate issued by the Taluk Office Thiruvallur in which the complainant’s name was found was marked as Ex.A4;
The partition deed among the vendor‘s legal heirs dated 22.01.2007 was marked as Ex.A5;
Power of Attorney executed by Daughters of Padmavathy in favour of complainant dated 19.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;
The sale deed dated 29.04.2019 executed by the complainant in favour of one Sujatha with regard to a portion of the property was marked as Ex.A7;
A letter sent by the complainant to the Joint Registrar dated 25.06.2019 intimating the non entry for the transaction done on 10.02.1988 and registered under the Joint Sub Registrar Chennai North was marked as Ex.A8;
Encumbrance certificate for the period 01.01.1975 to 07.07.2019 dated 08.07.2019 with regard to the property was marked as Ex.A9;
The notice issued by the complainant to the SRO Kunrathur was marked as Ex.A10;
The acknowledgement card for proof of service to the 1st opposite party was marked as Ex.A11;
Advocate notice dated 24.02.2020 was marked as Ex.A12;
The acknowledgement card for proof of service to the opposite parties was marked as Ex.A13;
The letter issued by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption to complainant’s Advocate dated 04.03.2020 was marked as Ex.A14;
Notice dated 04.09.2020 was marked as Ex.A15;
The acknowledgement card for receipt of notice by the opposite parties was marked as Ex.A16;
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and as the opposite parties inspite of sufficient notice did not appear they were called absent and hence they were set exparte on 19.03.2021.
The learned counsel for appearing for the complainant submitted that as a result of the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties in not uploading the sale deed dated 10.02.1988 the vendor of the legal heirs had illigally entered a partition deed with regard to the property vide document No.553/2007 before SRO Kunrathur. Even after notices were sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, they cited irresponsbive reasons for not uploading the transaction dated 10.02.1988.
We are constrained only about the non uploading of the entry for the transaction dated 10.02.1988. It is evident that on going through Ex.A9 the encumbrance certificate produced by the complainant the entries were found for the years 1978, 1987 and 2019 but the disputed entry dated 10.02.1988 was not found. However, Ex.A1 clearly shows that the sale transaction took place in favour of one Mrs.Padmavathi dated 10.02.1988 which was duly registered in SRO Chennai North. The above said entry was not found in the encumbrance certificate. The complainant also filed Ex.A5 dated 22.01.2007 to show that the legal heirs of vendor namely M.Palani Mudaliyar had entered into a partition deed with regard to the same property which is the subject matter in the sale transaction dated 10.02.1988. We also see that notice was given by the complainant to the opposite parties requesting to implead the said disputed transaction in the encumbrance but the same was not complied. In such circumstances it is proved that the opposite parties by citing some irrelavent reasons for the fault committed by them had failed to upload the entry dated 10.02.1988 in the encumbrance certificate. In such circumstances we hold that the opposite parties had committed negligence and deficiency in service in not uploading the entry with regard to the transaction dated 10.02.1988 which was duly registered with them. Thus we hold that the alleged deficiency in service has been proved by the adquate and proper evidence produced by the complainant. We find support of our view by the order rendered by the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH AT CHENNAI, REVISION PETITION NO.1444 of 2004, dated 05.03.2007, which provides as
“Further, as discussed above, Rule 143 mandatorily provides that the Certificate of Encumbrance shall contain complete list of all the acts and encumbrances affecting the property in question and search is required to be carried out in the presence of Registering Officer. Even a copy of the entry is not to be made from any book until the Registering Officer has scrutinized the entry generally. Despite this statutory vigil, if the concerned officer acts negligently in omitting to note the encumbrances or transfer of immovable property, it would certainly cause prejudice to valuable rights of consumer/complainant.”
Hence we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.
Point No.2
With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant, it is proper and necessary to direct the opposite parties to upload the disputed entry dated 10.02.1988 with the encumbrance certificate and also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. We answer this point accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to
a) upload the entry dated 10.02.1988 registered before Sub Registrar Office, Kuralagam within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order
b) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and hardship casued to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21st day of June 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 10.02.1988 Sale deed of Padmavathy. Xerox
Ex.A2 13.03.1994 Patta No.1664. Xerox
Ex.A3 05.04.2018 Death Certificate. Xerox
Ex.A4 10.05.2018 Legal heir Certificate. Xerox
Ex.A5 22.01.2007 Partition Deed among vendor legal heirs. Xerox
Ex.A6 19.03.2019 Power of Attorney executed by daughters in favour of complainant. Xerox
Ex.A7 30.04.2019 Sale deed in favour of Sujatha. Xerox
Ex.A8 25.06.2019 Letter issued to complainant to Joint Registrar, Guindy. Xerox
Ex.A9 08.07.2019 Encumbrance Certificate for the period 01.01.1975 to 07.07.2019. Xerox
Ex.A10 04.09.2019 Notice by complainant to 1st Respondent. Xerox
Ex.A11 09.09.2019 Acknowledgement card received by 1st respondent. Xerox
Ex.A12 24.02.2020 Advocate notice issued to opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A13 ……………. Acknowledgement card of opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A14 04.03.2020 Letter issued by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti corruption to complainant’s Advocate. Xerox
Ex.A15 04.09.2020 Advocate notice to opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A16 ………….. Acknowledgement card of opposite party. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
