THIAGARAJA FINANCE LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Hon’ble Thiru Justice S.A. Kader, President;
Thiru R.N. Manickam, Member;
Dr. Tmt. Ramani Mathuranayagam, Member
THIAGARAJA FINANCE LTD.—Complainant
versus
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS—Opposite Parties
O.P. No. 355 of 1992—Decided on 9.6.1993

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For Complainant :Tr. T.S.R. Venkataraman, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :Tr. V. Dhanapathy, Advocate.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency in service - Indian Stamp Act - Section 47(A)(1) - Determination of market value of property - Complainant purchased the property at Rs. 301 per cent - Stamp duty & registration charges paid - Joint Sub-Registrar II refused to hand over the documents - As he fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 1,000/ - per cent wanted additional deficit stamp duty - Market value at Rs. 1,000/- confirmed by Assistant Collector - However an appeal to Subordinate Judge property valued at Rs. 350 per cent - Complainant wrote to the Joint Sub-Registrar II to receive the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1329/- and necessary deficit registration charges and return the documents - More than 4 years passed - Then complainant was informed that an appeal is being preferred against the order of subordinate judge Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? (Yes)
       Held: The Subordinate Judge has passed the order under Exh. A 1 dated 17.11.1988; more than 4 years and 6 months were passed since then and no appeal has been preferred by the Government against the order of the Subordinate Judge. It follows that the order of the Subordinate Judge has become final and conclusive and the Registration Department has no right to challenge the order of the Subordinate Judge and question the market value fixed at Rs. 350/- per cent. The additional stamp duty payable as per the value fixed by the Subordinate Judge is Rs. 1,329/- according to the complainant and this is not challenged before us.
       Some additional registration charges will also have to be paid, and the exact amount is not known. The default on the part of the opposite party to collect the additional stamp duty as per the decision of the Subordinate Judge and the additional Registration charges which have been offered to be paid by the complainant and hand over the document after due endorsement for over 4 years amounts to gross deficiency of service and negligence. Accordingly we hold, the opposite parties guilty of negligence and deficiency of service. We accordingly hold that the complainant is a consumer, entitled to maintain this complaint. (Para 8)
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(1) - Reliefs - Scope of - The complainant prayed for directing the opposite party to receive the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration charges and return the deed of sale after due endorsement - Whether this relief can be granted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? (No)
       Held: Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act as now stands and in view of the recent decision of the National Commission that the Forum constituted under the Act has no power to direct the opposite party to do or desist from doing any act. We are unable to grant this relief. We are entitled only to grant the compensation prospectively and retrospectively. Accordingly the opposite party shall pay to the complainant compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per mensem from 10.6.1989 when the complainant under Exh. A-3 offered to pay the deficit stamp duty as per the order of the Subordinate Judge till the document is returned after receipt of the deficit court fee and registration charges as per the order of the Subordinate Judge. The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant as costs. (Paras 9 & 10)
       Result: Complaint partly allowed.
       IMPORTANT POINT
       Service rendered by the Registration Department is a service within the meaning of the Act.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President—This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The complainant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on financial business. It purchased an extent of 2.66 acres of land in Melagaram Village, Tenkasi Taluk from M/s. Saroja Mills Ltd., for Rs. 80,066/- on 5-8-1980. The sale deed was presented before the 2nd Respondent, the Joint Sub Registrar-II for registration. The price worked out at Rs. 301/- per cent. The document was duly stamped on the aforesaid sales consideration of Rs. 80,066/- and presented for registration before the 2nd opposite party, the Joint Sub Registrar-II on payment of requisite registration fees. The document was registered as document No. 1318 of 1980 but the second opposite party refused to hand over the document to the Complainant. He claimed that the value of the site was Rs. 1,000/- per cent and demanded stamp duty and registration charges on that basis. As the complainant was not amenable for the same, the second opposite party sent the document to the Assistant Collector, Tirunelveli, under Section 47(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1989 for determination of the market value of the property. The Assistant Collector, Tirunelveli accepted the valuation fixed by the 2nd opposite party and called upon the complainant to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 20,450/-. Aggrieved thereby the complainant filed an appeal in the Sub Court, Tenkasi in CMA 1/86 as provided under Section 47(A) Clause (4) impleading the Assistant Collector Tirunelveli and the 2nd opposite party, the Joint Sub-Registrar-II to Tenkasi as Respondents. The Subordinate Judge by his order dated 17-11-1988 fixed the value of the land at Rs. 350/- per cent. On 23-6-1989 the complainant wrote to the second opposite party offering to pay the additional stamp duty of Rs. 1,329/- and necessary additional registration fee and demanded return of the document. But the second opposite party by his letter dated 23-6-1989 demanded the sum of Rs. 20,450/- as deficit stamp duty and Rs. 1,555/- as deficit registration fees. The complainant by his letter dated 27-6-1989 invited the attention of the 2nd opposite party to the judgment of the Subordinate Judge fixing the market value at Rs. 350/- per cent thereupon the second opposite party wrote to the complainant pleading the ignorance of the judgment and directing the complainant to approach the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party by his letter dated 23-10-89 informed the complainant that steps were being taken for filing the appeal to the High Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge but nothing has happened till now. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency of services and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant’s claim is for an order for the return of original document No. 1318 after collecting the deficit free as per the order of the Subordinate Judge and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs.

3. The first opposite party the Government of Tamil nadu has filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party.

4. The second opposite party in its counter contended that on the date of registration of document dated 5-8-80, the guidelines value was Rs. 1,000/- per cent and hence the complaint was called upon to pay additional stamp duty on that basis. The Assistant Collector also directed the complainant to pay Rs. 20,450/- as deficit stamp duty. It is admitted that the complainant preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi who fixed the value at Rs. 350/- per cent. It is further contended that the decision has been taken to appeal against the order of the Subordinage Judge and only after the disposal of the appeal, the complainant can claim return of the document. The claim for compensation is also disputed.

5. The third opposite party has sent a letter to this Commission that the papers are pending with the Special Officer,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (1)