GOEL S.PAL vs Sub-Registrar

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 19th November, 2001, passed by District Forum No. II, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2836/2000 - entitled Shri Goel S. Pal v. Sub-Registrar, New Delhi.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Sh. Goel S. Pal, had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that the appellant, along with his wife, had purchased two Industrial Sheds, bearing Nos. B-111 and B-112, situated in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi, each measuring 71.06 sq. ft., in open auctions, held by the Delhi Development Authority, on 28th December, 1979 and 5th March, 1980. It was stated that after purchasing the above said two Industrial Sheds, the appellant took physical possession of the same, thereafter installed plant and machineries, fittings, fixtures, got electricity connection from Delhi Vidyut Board, a Factory Licence from the concerned Competent Authority and thereafter started production. It was stated that thereafter, the appellant requested the Delhi Development Authority to execute a lease deed in respect of the above said two Industrial Sheds and in response the Delhi Development Authority asked the appellant to have the lease deed and conveyance deed stamped from the Office of the Collector of Stamps, Tis Hazari, Delhi, after depositing the requisite stamp duty. It was further stated that the appellant, on receipt of the above intimation from the end of the Delhi Development Authority, immediately deposited stamp duty, amounting to Rs. 11,464/- in November, 1991. It was stated that after having the documents duly stamped, the appellant deposited the same in the Office of the Delhi Development Authority. But the functionaries of the Delhi Development Authority again, under threat, asked the appellant to get another set of documents stamped from the Office of the Collector of Stamps after depositing a further amount on account of stamp duty. It was stated that under threat, the appellant acted accordingly and again deposited the requisite amount on account of stamp duty in the Office of the Collector of Stamps. As per the case of the appellant, as put forth by him in his complaint, the Delhi Development Authority thereafter returned the first set of documents, bearing stamp duty worth Rs. 11,464/-. It was stated that on receipt of the above said set of documents from the end of the Delhi Development Authority, the appellant approached the Office of Collector of Stamps for the refund of the stamp duty paid by the appellant on the first set of documents. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, in nut-shell was that the respondents neither gave an reply nor refunded the stamp duty collected by them from the appellant. When the relief, as prayed for by the appellant for the refund of the stamp duty, was not given to the appellant by the respondents, the appellant, finding no way out, filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act on 29th July, 2000.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that the Collector of Stamps or Sub-Registrar or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, while supplying the stamp paper, does not render any ''service'' and the appellant in the given facts is not a ''consumer''. On the basis of the above findings, the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In the present appeal only two questions arise for consideration, viz. (i) whether the Collector of Stamps, discharging his duties under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Sub-Registrar, functioning under the Registration Act, 1908, are providers of ''service'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act; and (ii) whether, in the given facts, can it be stated that the appellant was a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

THESE very questions came up for consideration before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in case S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, I (1996) CPJ 11 (SC), and their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the above said decision, have held : "Running through the twin Acts, namely, the Registration Act and the Stamp Act, we could not, at any stage, reconcile ourselves to the idea spoused by the appellant''s Counsel, that there is an element of commercialism involved in the whole process of registration of instruments or payment of Stamp duty and that the executant of an instrument, at the time of its presentation for registration, becomes a "consumer" entitled to "service" within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The reasons are many. The Registration Act as also the Stamp Act are meant primarily to augment the State revenue by prescribing the stamp duty on various categories of instruments or documents and the procedure for collection of stamp duty through distress or other means including criminal prosecution as non-payment of stamp duty has been constituted as an offence. Payment of registration fee or registration charges including charges for issuing certified copies of the registered documents or fee for the inspection of various registers or documents kept in the Registrar''s or Sub-Registrar''s Office etc. constitute another component of State revenue. In this situation, therefore, the person who presents a document for registration and pays the stamp duty on it or the registration fee, does not become a consumer nor do the officers appointed to implement the provisions of the two Acts render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. They only perform their statutory duties (some of which, as earlier indicated, are judicial or, at least, quasi-judicial in nature) to raise and collect the State revenue which is a part of the sovereign power of the State."

(Emphasis supplied) The above decision of the Apex Court virtually clinches the matter finally and placing reliance on the above said decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we have least hesitation in holding that the Collector of Stamps and the Sub-Registrar, in the given facts, were not providers of ''service'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and the appellant was also not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. The appellant has placed reliance on a number of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, Hon''ble National Commission and the State Commissions in the memorandum and grounds of appeal. We have carefully gone through the above said decisions, relied upon by the appellant in support of his case. There can be no two opinions insofar as the proposition of law laid down in the above said decisions by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, Hon''ble National Commission and the State Commissions is concerned, but the fact remains that the same, in the given facts, in no way help the cause of the appellant insofar as the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is concerned. In view of the position explained above, the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.

HOWEVER, before concluding, we would like to make it clear that the dismissal of the present appeal by this Commission will not operate to the prejudice of the appellant in the matter of pursuing any other remedy that may be available to him under any other law for the time being in force. Appeal dismissed.