GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, THROUGH: DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI vs THIAGARAJA FINANCE LTD.

FIRST Appeal No. 314/93 by the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, Opposite Party before the State Commission and the cross appeal First Appeal No. 573/93 by Shree Thiagaraja Finance Ltd.., Complainant before the State Commission, are directed against the order dated 9.6.1993 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Madras allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem from 19.6.1989 when the Complainant offered to pay the deficient stamp duty as per fee order of the Subordinate Judge till the document is returned after receipt of the deficit Court the (sic stamp duty) and registration charges as per the orders of the Subordinate Judge.

THE Complainant''s case is that it had purchased on 3.8.1980 and extent of 2.66 acres of land from M/s. Saroja Mills Ltd. for Rs. 80,066/-; the price per cent as per document was Rs. 301/- and a sale deed was executed. The sale deed was presented before Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Opposite Party No. 2 for registration on payment of registration fee. The Opposite Party No. 2 opined that the value of the land is Rs.1,000/-per cent and after registering the document called upon the Complainant to refix the value and pay proper stamp duty and registration charges. As the Complainant did not agree, Opposite Party No. 2 sent the document to the Assistant Collector, Tiruneveli under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended for determination of the market value. The Assistant Collector determined the market value based upon the increased valuation as per guidelines prescribed and issued a notice dated 12.1.1986 to the Complainant demanding Rs. 20,450/- being the deficient stamp duty. The Complainant filed a civil suit challenging the determination of the market value by Assistant Collector and the Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated 17.11.1988 fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 350/- per cent. The Complainant then wrote on 20.6.1989 a letter to the Opposite Party No. 2 offering to pay a sum of Rs. 1329/- being the deficit stamp duty and registration fee and demanded return of original documents duly registered. The third Opposite Party informed the Complainant that they are taking stamps to prefer an appeal against the order of the Civil Court. As nothing happened, the Complainant filed the complaint alleging negligence of the Opposite Parties and deficiency in service and prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to return the Original Document No. 1318/1980 pending with the Opposite Party No. 2 by collecting the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 1329 / - and also claimed a sum of Rs. 7.00 lakhs as damages and loss of profits. On being noticed the Opposite Parties, inter alia raised preliminary objections that the payment of stamp duty and registration charges does not constitute or even remotely imply any service hired for consideration as defined in Section 2(l)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no service is implied in the refusal of the Registration Department and no service is involved in the guidelines valuation of the immovable property. On merits it is pleaded that Civil Court decree is not final as it is appealed against. It is averred that Opposite Parties are entitled to collect proper stamp duty in regard to the property transferred. The Government have prescribed guidelines after due enquiry on the basis of which stamp duty is assessed. On the date of registration i.e. 5.8.1980 the guidelines value was Rs. 1,000/- per cent and hence the Complainant was directed to pay the appropriate stamp charges and registration fee. According to the Opposite Parties the guidelines value is arrived at periodically taking into account location, market conditions and all relevant factors and Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act provides for scrutiny of the valuation by the Collector after due scrutiny and notice, the Complainant was directed to pay Rs. 20,450/- as deficient stamp charges.

THE State Commission in the impugned order noticed the preliminary objections that the Registration Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu is not rendering any service within the meaning of Section 2(l)(o) of the Act and the Complainant is not a consumer who could have said to have hired services of the Registration Department for consideration. The State Commission recalled that question had already been considered by it in "Lions Club Trust v. The Government of Tamil Nadu" 1993 (1) CPR 634==III (1993) CPJ1383 wherein it was held that the service done by the Registration Department is a service within the meaning of the Act and since it is done for consideration namely stamp duty and registration fee, person who presents documents for registration is consumer within the meaning of Section 291(d)(ii) of the Act. On merits the State Commission found deficiency in to the Complainant compensation of Rs.1,000/-per mensem from 10.6.1989 besides costs of Rs. 3,000/-.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records as well as the statutory provisions contained in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is pertinent to note Section 47A inserted in Tamil Nadu in the said Act. It provides that if the Registering Officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 while registering an instrument of conveyance, gift, release of benami right or settlement has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. On the receipt of a reference, the Collector after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under that Act, has to determine the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement and the duty as aforesaid. The difference if any, in the amount of duty is payable by the person liable to pay the duty. An appeal is provided to the Appellate Authority specified and in the manner prescribed by rules made under that Act. In this case the document was presented for registration before the second Opposite Party who accepted the document for registration as document No. 1318 of 1980 and referred the document to the Collector for determination of market value of the said property and the proper duty payable thereon. The deter mination was made by the Assistant Collector, Tirunelveli who sent a notice to the complainant demanding Rs. 20,450/- on 12.1.1986 as deficient stamp duty. The registration of the document is a mandatory requirement under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 for the conferment of title on transfer of property. It is a statutory function carried out by the Government. The collection of the registration charges or the stamp duty is not by way of consideration for rendering service and there is in hiring of service. The question whether any hiring of service for consideration within the ambit and scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is involved when the Collector of Stamps exercises functions under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 came up for consideration before this Commission in Revision Petition No. 472 of 1994, the Collector of Stamps v. Goel S. Pal &Anr. decided on 18th May, 1995-II (1995) CPJ 216 (NC). It was ruled: "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 deficient duty. The Collector is not only to levy the stamp duty but can impose a penalty upto 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 Stamps 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."

In First Appeal No. 59 of 1993 Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Brahmananda Rao alias V.B. Anand decided on 13th January, 1995, this Commission held that in granting an Encumbrance Certificate which is applied for from the Registration Office, the Registration Officials are performing only what is purely a statutory function enjoined on them by the concerned statute and they are not performing any service for consideration.

WE , therefore, find that the impugned order of the State Commission is wholly without jurisdiction as the Complainant is not a consumer within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. First Appeal No. 314 of 1993 is allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Consequently First Appeal No. 573 of 1993 is also dismissed. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.