Statutary bodies come under Consumer Protection Act: Forum

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Amritsar, July 30

In a rare judgment, the district Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed the halqa patwari, the tehsildar and the SDM, Amritsar, Subdivision I, to settle the mutation case of a local resident within one month.

The forum while clearing the ambiguity whether services such as registration and mutation as provided by the Revenue Department come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stated no distinction can be made between a private service provider and a public service provider.

The forum in its judgment stated, “The legislative intention is clear to protect a consumer against the services rendered even by statuary bodies. The text, therefore, is not if a person against whom a complaint is made is a statutory body, but whether the nature of the duty and the function performed by it is a service or even facility.”

Earlier, local residents Jatinder Satya and Pardeep Satya, both sons of Lala Amar Nath, a resident of Krishan Nagar, had filed a complaint against officials of the Revenue Department stating it has not recorded the mutation of property purchased by an industrial shed in 1995 from KJS industries.

The counsellor for the complainants, AS Cheema, said, “In 1995, the government had given a special permission that people with immovable properties in Punjab could register a sale deed, exchange deed or gift deed with the Registrar in Delhi. The permission was given in view of the political turmoil in the state at that time.” The complaints benefiting from the scheme had also got a sale deed registered for a property in Amritsar in Delhi in 1995. Cheema said even after 20 years, the local office of Revenue Department has not recorded the mutation of the property because of which they are facing various problems.

In the ex parte judgment where no one from the Revenue Department appeared except for the first hearing where the patwari was present, the forum stated if the joint registrar or his deputy commits mistakes in noting down the transfers of the properties, then there is no reason that he would not be liable to compensate for the said deficiency in service. The forum stated that not providing a service for which fee has been charged amounts to deficiency of service.