THIAGARAJA FINANCE LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE complainant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on financial business. It purchased an extent of 2.66 acres of land in Melagaram Village, Tenkasi Taluk from M/s. Saroja Mills Ltd., for Rs. 80,066/- on 5-8-1980. THE sale deed was presented before the 2nd Respondent, the Joint Sub Registrar-II for registration. THE price worked out at Rs. 301/- per cent. THE document was duly stamped on the aforesaid sales consideration of Rs. 80,066/- and presented for registration before the 2nd opposite party, the Joint Sub Registrar-II on payment of requisite registration fees. THE document was registered as document No. 1318 of 1980 but the second opposite party refused to hand over the document to the Complainant. He claimed that the value of the site was Rs. 1,000/- per cent and demanded stamp duty and registration charges on that basis. As the complainant was not amenable for the same, the second opposite party sent the document to the Assistant Collector, Tirunelveli, under Section 47(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1989 for determination of the market value of the property. THE Assistant Collector, Tirunelveli accepted the valuation fixed by the 2nd opposite party and called upon the complainant to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 20,450/-. Aggrieved thereby the complainant filed an appeal in the Sub Court, Tenkasi in CMA 1/86 as provided under Section 47(A) Clause (4) impleading the Assistant Collector Tirunelveli and the 2nd opposite party, the Joint Sub-Registrar-II to Tenkasi as Respondents. THE Subordinate Judge by his order dated 17-11-1988 fixed the value of the land at Rs. 350/- per cent. On 23-6-1989 the complainant wrote to the second opposite party offering to pay the additional stamp duty of Rs. 1,329/- and necessary additional registration fee and demanded return of the document. But the second opposite party by his letter dated 23-6-1989 demanded the sum of Rs. 20,450/- as deficit stamp duty and Rs. 1,555/- as deficit registration fees. THE complainant by his letter dated 27-6-1989 invited the attention of the 2nd opposite party to the judgment of the Subordinate Judge fixing the market value at Rs. 350/- per cent thereupon the second opposite party wrote to the complainant pleading the ignorance of the judgment and directing the complainant to approach the 3rd opposite party. THE 3rd opposite party by his letter dated 23-10-89 informed the complainant that steps were being taken for filing the appeal to the High Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge but nothing has happened till now. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency of services and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. THE complainant''s claim is for an order for the return of original document No. 1318 after collecting the deficit free as per the order of the Subordinate Judge and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. The first opposite party the Government of Tamil nadu has filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party.

The second opposite party in its counter contended that on the date of registration of document dated 5-8-80, the guidelines value was Rs. 1,000/- per cent and hence the complaint was called upon to pay additional stamp duty on that basis. The Assistant Collector also directed the complainant to pay Rs. 20,450/- as deficit stamp duty. It is admitted that the complainant preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi who fixed the value at Rs. 350/- per cent. It is further contended that the decision has been taken to appeal against the order of the Subordinage Judge and only after the disposal of the appeal, the complainant can claim return of the document. The claim for compensation is also disputed.

THE third opposite party has sent a letter to this Commission that the papers are pending with the Special Officer, Registration Department. Exh. A1 to A8 and B1 are marked by consent. Proof affidavit is filed by the Director of the Complainant.

THE preliminary question urged before us by the learned Counsel appeared for the opposite parties is that the Registration Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu is not rendering any service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is not therefore a consumer and he cannot be said to have hired the services of the Registration Department for consideration. This question came up for consideration before this Commission in Lions Club Trust v. THE Government of Tamil Nadu, 1993 (1) CPR 634 where this Commission observed as follows : "THE Registration Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu registers documents which are compulsorily registerable and documents which are also not compulsorily registerable, on payment of proper stamp duty and registration fees. This is indeed a service coming within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, under which ''service'' is defined as service of any description. Under Section 1(4) of the Act, the Act shall apply to all goods and services, save as otherwise expressly provided by the Central Government by notification. THE Central Government has not so far issued any notification excluding any service rendered by the Government Department from the purview of the Act. It follows, therefore the service done by the Registration Department is a service within the meaning of this Act and since it is done for consideration, namely stamp duty and registration fees, persons who present documents for registration are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. We hold therefore that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable.''

The complainant has purchased this property for a sum of Rs. 80,066/- which works out at Rs. 301/- per cent. He has paid the stamp duty and registration charges therefore and the document has been registered by the 2nd opposite party-as document No. 1318/80. But the second opposite party, the Joint Sub Registrar-II has refused to hand over the document to the complainant, as he fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 1,000/- per cent and wanted the complainant to pay the additional deficit stamp duty on that basis. As the complainant was not willing to pay stamp duty claimed by the opposite party No. 2, the Joint Sub Registrar-II has referred the matter to the Assistant Collector, Tirunelveli under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act for determination of the market value of the property. The Assistant Collector has fixed the value at Rs. 1000/- per cent as claimed by the 2nd opposite party. Thereupon the complainant has preferred an appeal under Section 47(A) Clause 4 of the Indian Stamp Act to the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi in CMA 1/86 in which the Assistant Collector, Tirunelveli and the 2nd opposite party, the Joint S ub Registrar-II were impleaded as Respondents. Exh. A1 is the order of the Subordinate Judge. In his detailed order, the Subordinate Judge has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector dated 12-1 1986 and valued at Rs. 350/- per cent. Exh. A2 is the decretal order. Under Ex. A3 dated 10-6-1989 the complainant has written to the second opposite party, the Joint Sub Registrar-II, Tenkasi who has registered the document to receive the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,329/- on the basis of the market value fixed by the Subordinate Judge at Rs. 350/- per cent. and the deficit stamp duty and necessary deficit registration charge and return the document after due endorsement. But the Joint Sub Registrar-II, the 2nd opposite party by his letter under Exh. 4A dated 23-6-1989 has called upon the complainant to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 20,450/- and additional registration registration charges of Rs. 1,555/-. The complainant has replied under Exh. A5 dated 27-6-89 inviting of the attention of the second opposite party to the Judgment of the Subordinate Judge fixing the value at Rs. 350/- per cent and the deficit stamp duty payable is only Rs. 1,329/-. He has also expressed therein his readiness to pay the amount. The 2nd Opposite party has replied under Exh. A6 dated 30-6-89 that the Court order has not been received and the complainant has been asked to approach the 3rd opposite party for necessary orders. The 3rd opposite party by his letter dated 23-10-1989 under Exh. A8 has informed the Complainant that an appeal is being preferred in the High Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge. The Learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the opposite parties conceded that there is nothing to show that any appeal has been preferred by the Government to the High Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge has passed the order under Exh. A1 dated 17-11-88; more than 4 years and 6 months were passed since then and no appeal has been preferred by the Government against the order of the Subordinate Judge. It follows that the order of the Subordinate Judge has become final and conclusive and the Registration Department, has no right to challenge the order of the Subordinate Judge and question the market value fixed at Rs. 350/- per cent. The additional stamp duty payable as per the value fixed by the Subordinate Judge is Rs. 1,329/- according to the complainant and this is not challenged before us. Some additional registration charges will also have to be paid, and the exact amount is not known. The default on the part of the opposite party to collect the additional stamp duty as per the decision of the Subordinate Judge and the additional registration charges which have been offered to be paid by the complainant, and hand over the document after due endorsement for over 4 years amounts to gross deficiency of service and negligence. Accordingly we hold the opposite parties guilty of negligence and deficiency of service. We accordingly hold that the complainant is a consumer entitled to maintain this complaint. The proper relief that has to be granted in this case to direct the opposite party to receive the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,329/- and deficit registration charges and return the deed of sale after due endorsement. But as such 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act as now stands and in view of the recent decision of the National Commission that the Forum constituted under the Act has no power to direct the opposite party to do or desist from doing any act, we are unable to grant this relief. We are entitled only to grant the compensation prospectively and retrospectively. The complainant is entitled to get compensation from the date of Exh. A3 dated 10-6-89 when he asked the Sub Registrar-II, the 2nd opposite party to receive the balance of stamp duty of Rs. 1,329/- on the basis of market value fixed by the Subordinate Judge and return the document which has not been complied with by the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant, it would have deposited title deeds and borrowed funds at a lower rate and invested the same at higher rate of interest and earned huge profit. He claims loss of earning at Rs. 60,000/- per year for 10 years. This claim is highly speculative. We are inclined to award compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem for loss and profit, mental agony etc., from 10-6-89 till the return of document on payment of deficit stamp duty as per the market value fixed by the Subordinate Judge and the deficit registration charges.

IN the result we order as follows : (1) The opposite party shall pay to the complainant compensation at Rs. 1000/- per mensem from 10-6-1989 when the complainant under Exh. A3 offered to pay the deficit stamp duty as per the order of the Subordinate Judge till the document is returned after receipt of the deficit court fee and registration charges as per the order of the Subordinate Judge. (2) The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant as costs. Complaint allowed with costs.