Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT SITTING—GWALIOR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President &Mr. B.L. Khare, Member
SMT. KUSUM AGRAWAL—Appellant
versus
SAMPATHI PRABHANDHAK ADHIKARI & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 1913 of 2000—Decided on 18.9.2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Dhanesh Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Rajendra Bhargava, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. S.S. Bhatnagar, Advocate.
The person presenting the document for registration before the Registrar of Assurances is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and the remedy for excess stamp duty and registration charges lies under the Indian Stamps Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Realization of Stamp Duty and Registration Charges - Registrar of Assurances not a consumer - Remedy under Indian Stamps Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint for deficiency in service in realizing the stamp duty and additional registration charges over and above the value of the plot, which was dismissed by the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the person presenting the document for registration before the Registrar of Assurances is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, and the remedy for excess stamp duty and registration charges was to file an appeal under the Indian Stamps Act.
Issues: The issues involved the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the appropriate remedy for excess stamp duty and registration charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Registrar of Assurances does not render any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and that the remedy for excess stamp duty and registration charges lies under the Indian Stamps Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.11.2000 passed in Case No. 288/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short the “District Forum”), whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in realising the stamp duty and additional registration charges over and above the value of the plot of Rs. 27,000/- wherein Rs. 9,955/- were included in the sale deed as capital interest, was dismissed holding that as the value of the plot in the sale deed is Rs. 36,955/-, therefore, the stamp duty and registration charges were payable as per valuation of the property for which the respondent No. 2 cannot be held deficient in service.
2. After hearing learned Counsels for the parties and on reappraisal of evidence on record, we are of the opinion that a person presenting document for registration before the Registrar of Assurances is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short the ‘Act’) as the Registrar of Assurances do not render any service within the meaning of the Act, who performs statutory duties. See, the decision of the Supreme Court in case of S.P. Goel v. Collector, AIR 1996 SC 839.
3. Besides, if additional excess amount of stamp duty and registration charges were charged then the remedy of the appellant was to file an appeal under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act and not a complaint under the Act.
4. The submission that the capital interest could not be included in the cost of the plot cannot be accepted as the cost of the plot includes capital interest that is the view of this Commission in Appeal No. 1833/1999, decided on 22.6.2001, M.P. Housing Board v. Dr. R.P. Singh.
5. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith record of the case.
Appeal dismissed.
