GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. THIAGARAJA FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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/-.