COLLECTOR OF STAMPS vs GOEL S.PAL

THIS Revision Petition raises the question whether any hiring of the services for consideration within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is involved when the Collector Stamps exercises functions under the Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

A document styled as Will'' dated 4.7.1987 executed by Shri P.N. Mishra in favour Shri S.P. Goel and Smt. Shanti Rani Goel (the Complainants before the District Forum) in respect of built up property at C-33, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-20 was resented on 24.8.1987 before the Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi for registration. The Sub-Registrar on perusal of the "Will" expressed the opinion that it is not a "Will" as the said property is being transferred under the document against the sale consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/- but it is a conveyance not duly stamped. The document was impounded under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and forwarded to the Collector of Stamps on 14.8.1987 for taking action under Section 40 of the Stamp Act, 1899 with the remarks that "this was not a Will but a conveyance deed and chargeable by 8% duties (stamp duty 3% and transfer duty 5%). The Collector of Stamps on perusal of the document expressed prima facie opinion that it is not a mere will as property is being transferred against the sale consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/-, therefore, the beneficiary/purchaser viz. Shri. S.P. Goel and Smt. Shanti Rani Goel, were called by the Collector of Stamps for appearance by notice dated 24.8.1987, 11.11.1987, 13.4.1988, 23.5.1988 and 14.9.1988, 24.1.1991 and 2.2.91. Shri S.P. Goel appeared before the Collector of Stamps on 22.2.1991 and he was apprised that it is a clear cut case of conveyance. He was asked to furnish the valuation report, supporting documents viz. agreement to sell, receipt, general power of attorney from time to time. The Complainants did not furnish the requisite documents till 3.8.1992 when the Complainants filed copies of various documents before the Collector of Stamps.

IN the meanwhile, the Complainants filed a complaint on 6.9.1991 before the District Forum, Delhi for various reliefs. The Complainants admit in their complaint filed before the District Forum that "in their earlier letters/correspondence, the Collector of Stamps has been asking again and again since 1987 till 30.4.1991 for submission of the valuation report and when the valuation report was submitted on 15.4.1991, he had now started asking documents like G.P.A., agreement to sell and no objection letter from D.D.A." The documents were not filed and the case was not finalised by the Collector of Stamps. The relief prayed in the complaint filed on or about 6.9.1991 is for a direction for the registration of the Will and also for the supply of a certified copy besides compensation for harassment of the Complainant and his wife since 1987.

THE District Forum, Delhi in its order dated 12.5.1993 concluded that the Complainants have hired the services of the Sub-Registrar/Collector of Stamps and thus the Complainant is a consumer and that not passing any orders under the provisions of Section 40 of the said Act for 6 or 7 long years constitutes deficiency in service. The District Forum awarded Rs. 700/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation to the Complainant. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum-I, Delhi the Complainants as well as the Opposite Parties filed two separate appeals. The State Commission, Delhi in the impugned order dated 11.4.1994 upheld the findings of the District Forum but enhanced the compensation to be paid to the Complainants to Rs. 5,000/- and dismissed the appeal of the Opposite Parties.

AS already stated in the meanwhile the Complainant vide his letter dated 3.8.1992 submitted following documents to the Collector of Stamps: (a) Photocopy of sale agreement dated 18.7.1987 between P.N. Mishra and the Complainant in respect of the said property. (b) Photocopy of receipts of money by P.N. Mishra from the Complainants in the sum of: (i) Rs. 2,25,000/- dated 24.7.1987 (ii) Rs. 50,000/- dated 27.6.1987 (iii) Rs. 40,000/- dated 29.6.1987 (iv) Rs. 10,000/- dated 17.7.1987 (v) Rs. 1,25,000/- dated 24.7.1987 (c) General Power of Attorney''s photo copy dated 27.7.1987

THE Collector of Stamps vide order dated 12.11.1992 proposed a stamp duty of Rs. 6,750/- and transfer duty of Rs. 11,250/- and directed appearance of the Complainants on 26.11.1992 for finalisation of the case. After hearing the Complainants the Collector of Stamps confirmed that order. The Complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 18,050/- comprising of a sum of stamp duty or Rs. 6,750/-, transfer charges of Rs. 11,250/-and penalty of Rs. 50/-in the Treasury of the Government consequent upon finalisation of the case by Collector of Stamps on 6.8.1993. It would be apposite after noticing the facts of the case to refer to the provisions oft Indian Stamps Act, 1899. Section 33 of the said Act provides for the examination of documents and for impounding of documents which are not duly stamped. Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to received evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. The Sub-Registrar-I, New Delhi found the instrument to be not duly stamped and is bound by Section 33 to impound it and to send it to the Collector to Stamps under Section 38(2) of the Act. Section 40 of the said Act lays down the procedure to be followed when an instrument impounded by the Sub-Registrar under Section 33 has been sent to the Collector of Stain; under Section 38(2). It provides that when the Collector receives an instrument sent to under Section 38 Sub-section (2), not being instrument chargeable with a duty of one anna (or half an anna) only or a bill of exchange or promissory note, he shall adopt the following procedure:" (a) if he is of opinion that such instrument is duly stamped or is not chargeable with duty, he shall certify be endorsement thereon that it is duly stamped, or that it is not so charge able, as the case may be; (b) if he is of opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty of five rupees; or, if he thinks fit, (an amount not exceeding) ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof, whether such amount exceeds or falls short of five rupees: or, if he thinks fit, an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty, or of the deficient portion thereof, whether such amount exceeds or falls short of five rupees.

A perusal of these provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 shows that the Collector of Stamps is vested with the jurisdiction to enquire whether the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped and if so to require the payment of the proper or deficiency duty. The Collector is not only to levy the Stamp duty but can impose a penalty up to 10 times of the proper duty. The vesting of the power to impose the penalty and discretion vested in him to levy an amount not exceeding 10 times of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof shows that he is discharging quasi-judicial functions. The Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the exercise of a quasi judicial function by a statutory authority can never fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and consequently the jurisdiction of the Consumer Redressal Forums cannot be invoked as a means of redressal by a person aggrieved by the order of the quasi-judicial authority. When a document has been impounded by the Sub-Registrar and sent to the Collector of stamp and the Collector by taking action under Section 41 (b) has called upon the executant to pay up the stamp duty together with the penalty, the order is open to revision by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. These functions vested and exercised by the Collector of Stamps or Chief Controlling Revenue Authority are statutory adjudicatory functions. There is no hiring of the services by the Complainants for consideration with the meaning and scope of the Consumer Protection Act. The Collector, assuming was discharging a service was doing the same as a functionary of the Government acting under the authority of a statute and for the benefit of the revenue for which he was being paid by the Government and not by the Complainant. Salaries paid to the Government officials in discharge of governmental functions can in law never be said to be a consideration paid by a member of public for availing the service of the Government Take the case of a litigant who pays Court fees for institution of legal proceedings before the Court of law property so constituted, it cannot in law be said that the litigant has hired the services of the Court for that the Court would, therefore, fall within the jurisdiction of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The order of Collector levying duty and penalty in terms of statute and paid by the Complainants in the Government treasury can never in law be said to be either a charge for service rendered or to be rendered for consideration for the services. We, therefore, find that the impugned orders of the State Commission as well as District Forum are wholly without jurisdiction as the Complainants are not consumers within the ambit and scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the Complaint dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.