JOINT SUB REGISTRAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE SHANMUGAPURAM PALANI 2 DINDIGUL DISTRICT Vs. MARAGATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in this Revision Petition is: Whether the Joint Sub-Registrar of the District Registrar"s Office can be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuing erroneous encumbrance certificate under the Rules framed by the State of Tamil Nadu under Registration Act, 1908? For the reasons recorded hereinafter we hold that the Joint Sub-Registrar or concerned officer could be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in case of issuance of encumbrance certificate without noting all the relevant transfers, encumbrances or transactions with regard to immovable property. The reason is erroneous encumbrance certificate seriously prejudice the rights of the parties and increases litigations and disputes with regard to immovable property. Issuance of encumbrance certificate is a service and facility to be provided under the statutory rules for fees.

(2.) FURTHER , for carrying out search or for obtaining an encumbrance certificate, a person is required to pay prescribed fees; and, in case of emergent search, double the normal rates of the fees. Under the Rules, the encumbrance certificate is required to contain complete list of encumbrances affecting the immovable property. At the time of search and for copying the entries, precautions are contemplated under the Rules and the search is required to be carried out in the presence of the registering officer. In support of the aforesaid finding we would discuss the contentions raised by the parties in detail. It is undisputed that in the present case there were apparent errors in noting down the transfers while issuing encumbrance certificate.

(3.) THEREAFTER , when the Complainant wanted to sell the said plot to one Raj Kumar, the said Raj Kumar applied for the encumbrance certificate from 1.1.1981 to 17.12.1996. In that certificate only a few encumbrances were mentioned. Believing the said certificate to be true Raj Kumar purchased property from the Complainant by paying Rs.89,000/- and got it registered. When Raj Kumar went to take possession, one Ameer Amsa, son of Mohammed Sultan of Palani claimed that the property belonged to him and showed him the registered sale deed. Therefore, the said Raj Kumar again went and applied for another encumbrance certificate on 1.8.1997 in which some encumbrances were mentioned. Considering the aforesaid dispute the said Raj Kumar filed a Civil Suit OS No. 201 of 1997 against the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant committed fraud and cheated him. The Complainant was required to settle the matter by paying a large amount. Because of this deficiency in service in issuing encumbrance certificate without verifying the record the Complainant has suffered a considerable loss, expenses and loss of prestige. Hence the Complainant filed complaint being O.P. No.77 of 1998 before the District Forum, Dindigul claiming a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. The District Forum by order dated 3.3.1999 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Registering Officers were only performing statutory function while issuing encumbrance certificate and hence, for that, the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. Against that appeal, A.P.No. 337 of 1999 was filed by the Complainant before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By the order dated 19th March, 2004 the State Commission allowed the appeal by observing that there was deficiency in service by the Joint Sub-Registrar in issuing erroneous encumbrance certificate and directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Hence, this Revision Petition.