T.C.GOVINDASAMY vs B.KASTHURI

DESIRABLE it is to pen down a common order in all these actions. The reasons for such a course was manifold. No doubt, all these actions spring from a common order dated 28th day of May, 1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) in O.P. Nos. 98 to 103/1997.

THE opposite party in all these actions namely T.C. Govindasamy is one and the same although the individual complainants in the different original actions are, of course, distinct and different and they are : (1) B. Kasthuri, w/o N. Damodaran; (2) D. Rajasekar, s/o Damodaran; (3) D. Chandrasekar, s/o Damodaran; (4) G. Banumathi, w/o Chandrasekar; (5) J. Revathi, w/o D. Rajasekar; and (6) N. Damodaran, s/o Narayanasamy Naidu. The factual matrix is almost similar in every respect although the subject matter of the property purchased varies in extent and other details such as the person from whom the property is purchased, etc.

The first three complainants, namely B. Kasthuri, D. Rajasekar and D. Chandrasekar in O.P. Nos. 98, 99 and 100/1997, it is said, were desirous of purchasing one-third undivided share in respect of the property in Survey Nos. 131/2 and 132 comprising an extent of 2485 sq. ft. belonging to one Kannappan. The sale deed in his favour in respect of the said property is dated 2.5.1960.

THE other three complainants, namely G. Banumathi, J. Revathi and N. Damodaran in O.P. Nos. 101, 102 and 103/1997 were desirous of purchasing 1/3rd undivided share in respect of the property in Survey No. 131/2 measuring an extent of 2445 sq. ft. belonging to one K. Krishnamurthy Naidu. THE sale deed in his favour is also dated 2.5.1960. The individual sale deeds for the above said six complaints were said to have been drafted by the opposite party by name T.C. Govindasamy, an Advocate by profession, residing at Plot No. C-39, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras-40. The consideration for preparing each of the sale deeds in favour of the individual complainants is Rs. 2,000/- for the said Advocate, the opposite party. While drafting the individual sale deeds the property description was not correctly mentioned, that is to say, the property description mentioned in the individual sale deeds was not in accord with the property description found mentioned in the original sale deed. After the drafting of the sale deeds, the sale deeds as a matter of fact were got registered before the competent Sub-Registrar Office.

SUBSEQUENT to the registration of the sale deeds, the individual complainants wanted to effect transfer of the names in the Corporation records also. The Corporation Authorities refused to effect the mutation of the names asked for inasmuch as the description of the property mentioned in the individual sale deeds was not found in accord with the parent documents. The individual complainants, it is said, approached the opposite party T.C. Govindasamy, an Advocate by profession and explained the matter. The opposite party Advocate, it appears, agreed to do the needful to rectify the defects in the sale deed by way of presenting another rectification deed for the said sale deed before the concerned authorities. Believing the representations so made by the opposite party Advocate, the individual complainants handed over all the original documents including the original parent documents to the opposite party. They waited for more than 30 days and the opposite party, Advocate did not at all do the needful. He as a matter of fact returned back all the documents and refused to carry out the defects by presenting the rectification deeds before the concerned authority contrary to his earlier promise. Thereafter the individual complainants met one N.K. Mani, a retired Sub-Registrar and document writer for effecting the rectification deed. The said document writer presented the rectification deed after correcting the entire discrepancy in the sale deed prepared by the opposite party and presented the same before the concerned authority on 9.8.1996. By that time, the market value got enhanced by the Government from Rs. 3,60,000/- to Rs. 5,69,000/-. Consequently, each of the individual complainants was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 27,987/- for such rectification. If the opposite party had been vigilant in preparing the individual sale deeds, the individual complainants would not have incurred such a loss. The act of the opposite party in preparing the individual sale deeds with all sorts of defects, each of the complainants would say, would tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

IN such a backdrop and setting, the individual complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

THE opposite party/Advocate in pith and substance contended in all the original actions that he did not prepare the individual sale deeds. What happened was that the individual sale deeds were prepared by a document writer and he was asked to sign the sale deeds as a person, who drafted the same and he simply subscribed his signature in all the sale deeds saying that he was the person responsible for drafting the sale deeds. For subscribing his signature in those sale deeds, he did not receive any consideration at all. As such, there is no deficiency in service on his part. THE individual complaints are liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, however, recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Advocate in drafting the individual sale deeds full of defects, which required a rectification deed to be effected in each of the individual case after incurring an expense of Rs. 27,987/-. Consequently the Forum below directed the opposite party Advocate to pay to each of the complainants a sum of Rs. 27,987/- towards the charges incurred for the registration of rectification sale deed by them totalling to [Rs. 27,987/- x 6] Rs. 1,67,922/-. This apart, the Forum below also directed the opposite party to pay to each of the complainants compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- totalling to [Rs. 1,000/- x 6] Rs. 6,000/-. The opposite party was further directed to pay to each of the complainants a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of costs, that is to say, [Rs. 500/- x 6] Rs. 3,000/-. Thus the opposite party was directed to pay to the individual complainants a sum of Rs. 1,76,922/-. This amount is directed to be paid within two months from the date of its order or otherwise the individual complainant should be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, "the Act, 1986"].

Aggrieved by the order as above, the appellant/opposite party resorted to the present actions, namely A.P. Nos. 547 to 552/1998 before this Commission by engaging a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. N.A. Sukumaran, K. Ashok Chakravarthy and R. Ramesh.

ON service of process, the respondents/individual complainants also entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. S. Palanivelayutham and V.G. Anbarasu. When these matters came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/opposite party namely M/s. N.A. Sukumaran, K. Ashok Chakravarthy and R. Ramesh were called; absent and no representation was made on their behalf. The fact that the said learned Counsel were absent is of no consequence. We are inclined to dispose of the appeals on merits of course, after hearing the argument of learned Counsel Mr. S. Palanivelayutham representing the respondents/individual complainants and on perusal of the materials placed on record and that is exactly what we have done in these actions.

FROM the pith and submission of the said learned Counsel Mr. S. Palanivelayutham and on perusal of the materials placed on record, the one and only question that crops up for consideration is as to whether the order of the Forum below is sustainable on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases. There is no pale of controversy that all the sale deeds bear the date 21.3.1996. A perusal of the sale deeds also indicates in no uncertain terms that they were prepared and drafted by the opposite party/Advocate/T.C. Govindasamy. On the face of the explicit recital in those sale deeds, the defence put forward by the said Advocate that all the sale deeds were prepared by a document writer and he simply subscribed his signatures to all the sale deeds just to comply with the formality of registration cannot at all be expected to commend acceptance at our hands. It is the positive case of each of the individual complainants that for drafting each sale deed, a fee of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to the said Advocate. No doubt, the opposite party Advocate would deny the receipt of any such consideration. The fact that the said Advocate/opposite party denied the receipt of consideration on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases cannot at all get commendation of acceptance at our hands. To say that the opposite party/Advocate drafted the sale deeds without consideration is to expect the existence of something in the vacuum, which may not at all happen in reality. So, we are of the view that the opposite party drafted the sale deeds after receiving the consideration from the various individual complainants for such preparations and drafting the sale deeds. The fact that all the sale deeds contained all sorts of mistakes relating to Survey Numbers, Door Numbers, boundaries cannot at all be disputed. This is patent from the verification of the individual sale deeds with the parent deeds marked in the case on hand. There is no dispute at all that each of the individual complainants incurred the charges for effecting the registration of rectification deed a sum of Rs. 27,987/-. The Forum below in such circumstances after recording a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party directed him to pay to each of the individual complainants a sum of Rs. 27,987/- and such sort of a direction cannot at all be found fault with. This apart, the Forum below also awarded compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the individual complainants for the mental agony and anguish suffered and the amount of compensation so awarded is reasonable not calling for interference on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases. The Forum below also directed the opposite party to pay to each of the individual complainants a cost of Rs. 500/-, which cannot at all be stated to be unreasonable calling for interference. As such, all the appeals deserve to be dismissed. In fine, all the appeals fail and they are dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases. We, however, make it crystal clear that the order of the Forum below as confirmed by us is required to be complied with by the opposite party within a month from the date of receipt of our order or otherwise the individual complainants would be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act, 1986. Appeals dismissed.