GOEL S. PAL ANDSHANTI RANI GOEL vs COLLECTOR OF STAMPS

THIS order will dispose of Appeal Numbers A-276 and A-292 of 1993 which arise out of the same order of the District Forum dated 12.5.93.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant produced a Will before the Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi for registration of the same, on 24.7.87. The Sub-Registrar prima-facie was of the view that the document was not a Will but a Sale-Deed. Consequently he impounded and sent the same to the Collector of Stamps for assessment of the stamp duty plus transfer charges, on 14.8.87. The Collector summoned the complainant many times, but inspite of putting his appearance before the Collector, he did not make the assessment of the stamp duty upto 6.8.93. The complainant filed the present complaint on 6.9.91 claiming damages against the opposite party for deficiency in service. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. The District Forum held that the opposite party did not give any plausible explanation for delay in deciding the matter. Consequently it accepted the complaint with costs and granted Rs. 700/- as damages against the opposite party. Two appeals have been filed one by the complainant and the other by the opposite party. The appeal filed by the complainant has been numbered as A-292/93 and that by the opposite party as A-276/93.

In the complainant''s appeal the opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte on the last date of hearing. In the appeal by the Collector notice was issued to them but no one appears on their behalf. We have heard Mr. Goel. He has vehemently argued that the time taken by the Collector in deciding the matter was too long inspite of the fact that he visited Collector''s Office a number of times. In the aforesaid circumstance he submits the amount of damages granted to him are too small.

WE have given due consideration to the argument and find force in it. There appears to be no dispute about the facts. The complainant filed the documents for registration in July, ''87, whereas the matter was finally decided by the Collector in August ''93. Thus he took more than 6 years in deciding a simple matter. The complainant visited the office of the Collector on various occasions. It is common knowledge that in Delhi the distances are too long and in addition to the cost which one has to incur, he has to experience great inconvenience and harassment. In the aforesaid circumstances in our view the damages granted to the complainant are on the lower side. The complainant is an Architect and it is natural that his work must have suffered when he had to visit the office of the Collector. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances we enhance the damages from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 5,000/-. For the aforesaid reasons we accept Appeal No. A-292/93 and direct the Collector to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within a period of three months, failing which action shall be taken against him u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. As no one appears on behalf of the Collector,, therefore we make no order as to costs in the appeal.

THE Appeal No. A-276/93 filed by the Collector is dismissed. Appeal No. A-276/93 dismissed, Appeal No. A-292/93 accepted.