State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Minor Yazhini Rep By Her Father And ... vs Sri Narendra Gas Agency No.1 ... on 11 October, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No. 406 of 2022 [Against the order dated 22.06.2022, passed in C.C.No.3 of 2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai]. Wednesday, the 11th day of October, 2023 1. The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Durgai Amman Koil Street, Tiruvannamalai Town. 2. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office No.1, Durgai Amman Koil Street, Tiruvnnamalai Town. .. Appellants/Opposite Parties - Vs - Kamaraj, S/o Palpandian, No.50, Anaikatti Street, Tiruvannamalai Town and District. .. Respondent/Complainant For the Appellants/Opposite Parties : M/s. A.Edwin Prabakar For the Respondent/Complainant : M/s. M.Kirubaharan This appeal came up for final hearing on 22.09.2023 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and Respondents and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:- O R D E R
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties, as against the order dated 22.06.2022, passed in C.C.No.3 of 2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvannamalai, allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent/complainant in part.
2. The Appellants are the opposite parties. The Respondent is the complainant. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this order will be referred as per their respective rankings before the District Commission.
3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a property comprised in S.No.326/4, measuring an extent of 1060 sq. ft., along with 600 sq. ft. constructed RCC house with EB and Tap connection, from one Govindammal W/o Mani and it was registered with the 2nd opposite party under Document No.491/2017 dated 23.03.2017. When the complainant approached the bank for availing loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on mortgaging the said property they insisted him to obtain Encumbrance Certificate for the above property. Therefore, he applied for Encumbrance Certificate by paying necessary charges and it was also issued by the 2nd opposite party without making the entry about the particulars to the above said property in the Encumbrance Certificate. When the complainant orally reported the same to the 2nd opposite party, he assured that necessary entries will be uploaded immediately in the website and that corrected Encumbrance Certificate will be issued to the complainant. But they have not uploaded anything in the website. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and reminded in person, but he has not considered his request. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 12.06.2020 and even though they received the notice, they have not given any reply. Hence, alleging deficiency of service the complaint has been filed.
4. Resisting the case of the complainant, the 2nd opposite party has filed a written version which was adopted by the 1st opposite party. In the version it is stated that the complainant had not come with true and real facts before this commission. The complainant had purchased the property on 23.03.2017 from one Govindammal W/o Mani by way of a registered sale deed dated 23.03.2017 under Document No.491/2017. The opposite party has not known about the intention of the complainant that he has to obtain loan from the bank by mortgaging the properties. The complainant has not mentioned the date on which he has applied to the 2nd opposite party for Encumbrance Certificate. If the complainant had furnished correct Survey number and other required details, the Encumbrance Certificate would have been given to him within a day or two and there is no necessity for the 2nd opposite party to drag the complainant and refuse to issue the Encumbrance Certificate. Further, the complainant has not given the details about the property like Survey Number, boundaries etc., and without giving the required and necessary particulars, the complainant has come forward with this vexatious complaint. The opposite party has never failed in discharging their official duties and the complaint filed by the complainant is bereft of details and the same is liable to be dismissed inlimini.
5. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit 6 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A6. On the side of the opposite parties, along with proof affidavit 2 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B2.
6. The District Commission, on analyzing the entire evidence on records, had come to the conclusion that the issuance of Encumbrance Certificate is a service and facility to be provided under the statutory rules on payment of fees. The complainant has paid necessary fees for the issuance of Encumbrance Certificate and the Receipt for online application has been marked as Ex.A.4. So, it is the duty of the 2nd opposite party to issue the Encumbrance Certificate containing all the particulars to the complainant. If the correct particulars were not given by the complainant, his application would have been rejected. The act of the 2nd opposite party in not furnishing the schedule description and boundaries in the Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 Encumbrance Certificates amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony suffered by him caused by the 2nd opposite party and directed the 2nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards costs, to the complainant. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties.
7. Heard the submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent. I have gone through the materials placed on record.
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that a person seeking to register a document or seeking for any service rendered by the Sub Registrar of the Registration Department or doing any similar duty in the course of discharge of his functions under the Registration Act and also under the Stamp Act would not come within the purview of the service contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. In the instant case the complainant applied for Encumbrance Certificate in respect of a particular property and the Encumbrance was not reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate. Such allegations cannot be an issue before the Consumer Commission. Thus, sought for setting aside the order of the District Commission.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent/complainant has made a detailed submissions adverting to the averments made in the complaint and in support of the order passed by the District Commission and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Keeping in view the submissions made by the counsel on either side, this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has paid necessary fees for furnishing the Encumbrance Certificate. The 2nd opposite party after collecting necessary charges has issued Encumbrance Certificate without mentioning the schedule description and boundaries. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. In this regard it is relevant to refer the judgment of High Court of Madras, in the case of R.Ravichandran Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Madras & Ors., in W.P.No.15097 of 1996 and W.M.P.No.24025 of 1995 decided on 03.10.2001, reported as (2002-2-L.W. 590) wherein it has been held that the Joint Sub-Registrar while issuing Encumbrance Certificate is not only discharging his statutory duty but is performing function which is in the nature of service for consideration, namely, prescribed fees. Therefore, from the said judgment it is clear that in the instant case, the concerned authority namely 2nd opposite party is not only discharging his statutory duty but also performing function which is in the nature of service for consideration, namely, prescribed fees paid by the complainant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate. But, the 2nd opposite party after collecting necessary charges has issued Encumbrance Certificate without mentioning the schedule description and boundaries. Hence, this Commission finds that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission and the same is hereby confirmed. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.
11. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed and the order dated 22.06.2022, passed in C.C.No.3 of 2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvannamalai, is hereby confirmed. No costs.
R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No GR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August/2023