Deficiency in service by a public authority entitles consumers to compensation under relevant public services regulations.

1. The short case of the complaint is that the Petitioner / Complainant approached to the developer for purchase one residential flat at Midnapore.

2. The valuation of the said Flat was assessed by the opposite party No. 1 Rs.27,21,600 only and accordingly the vendor presented the Sale Deed No. 5375 of 2014 dated 30.12.2014 before the ADSR, Opposite Party No. 1 for its execution and registration and the petitioners in accordance with the registration procedure had paid stamp duty of Rs.1,63,320 and also paid the required registration fees of Rs.19,176 on the date of execution of Deed on 30.12.2014 along with the said Deed of Sale in the office of ADSR, Paschim Medinipur.

3. That after received of sale deed, the petitioner went to the office of the LICHFL for deposit the same as mortgage in terms of loan agreement and after going through the said Deed the LICHFL and the petitioner found that at the time of preparing the certificate of the payment of stamp duty, registration fees etc. by the opposite party No. 1, written in the endorsement copy of said deed that the market value of the property is Rs.17,42,400 in place of its market value of Rs.27,21,600 and required stamp duty was also wrongly written as Rs.1,04,564 instead of Rs.1,63,320 and Registration Fees of Rs.19,176 instead of Rs.29,938.
"In such a situation petitioner - complainants went to the office of the opposite party No. 1 but the Opposite Party No. 1 did not correct the defect made by him inspite of humble request for correction the said mistake. Therefore the complainants went to the office of opposite party No. 2 meet with the District Registrar on 6.1.2015 and also requested the opposite party No. 2 for correction."

4. That in such a situation the LICHFL refused to accept the Deed as opposite party made the gross mistake in recording the actual market value of Flat Stamp Duty, Registration fees etc. and others in the document of the complainants and as such the petitioners facing lot of difficulties.

5. As the OPs were reluctant to oblige the Complainant, in this regard, the Complainant initiated the instant complaint demanding adequate compensation from the OPs and rectification of Deed.

6. On notice, OPs appeared to defend its case and filed W.V. Both sides filed Affiavit - in - Chief in support of their respective contentions and also answered the questionnaire being put forth from the other side.

7. Be it mentioned here that, at the time of hearing none of the OPs turned up to defend their case. Therefore, the case was heard ex parte.

8. In the W.V, the OPs admit the position stating in paragraph 3 - "The rectification of the said computerized sheet is the adequate relief...."

9. It appears from the record that rectification of the Deed of Sale taken place on 8.7.2017, i.e., after the filing of this case in this Commission in 9.8.2016.

10. Admittedly, there is 'deficiency in service' by the 'Public Authority / OP'. As per observation of the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh , III (2004) SLT 161:II (2004) CPJ 12 SC : 2004 (5) SCC 65 , Compensation can be paid to a Consumer even for the harassment suffered by him at the hands of a public authority.

11. As per S.2(h) of "The West Bengal Right to Public Services Act 2013 "; OP is a 'Public Authority'. Keeping an eye in S.7 of the said Act, OP has failed to provide service without sufficient and reasonable cause.

12. Considering the entire panorama, OP is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,000 and Rs.10,000 as litigation cost, total of Rs.11,000 to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. Complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.
Complaint allowed