Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a built-up property at C-83, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. The appellant S.P. Goel and his wife claimed under a Will dated 24 July 1987 executed by P.N. Mishra in their favour, which was presented for registration on 24 August 1987 before Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi. The Sub-Registrar impounded the document, opining that it was not a Will but a Deed of Conveyance not duly stamped, and sent it to the Collector of Stamps under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with a suggestion that stamp duty at 3% and transfer duty at 5% were chargeable. The Collector issued notices and required the appellant to furnish a valuation report, receipts, and a General Power of Attorney so that the instrument could be properly stamped and registered. Aggrieved by the delay, the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Delhi on 6 September 1991 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking registration of the Will, supply of certified copy, and compensation for harassment since 1987. The District Forum allowed the complaint on 12 May 1993, holding that since the appellant had paid registration charges he had hired services and awarding Rs 700 compensation and Rs 500 costs. The State Commission, by order dated 11 April 1994, upheld the District Forum and enhanced compensation to Rs 5,000. The respondent Collector of Stamps filed a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which by the impugned judgment dated 18 May 1995 allowed the revision and dismissed the complaint, holding that the District Forum and State Commission had no jurisdiction because the appellant was not a consumer under the Act. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal questions were whether the appellant was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d), whether the Collector of Stamps and Sub-Registrar rendered service under Section 2(1)(o), and whether there was deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant relied on Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta and Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, contending that these decisions conclusively brought the State authorities within the definition of service and consumer. The respondent and the National Commission maintained that registration and stamp duty are statutory functions under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which deal with State revenue, and that the Act could not be invoked. The Supreme Court held that the earlier decisions were not applicable because the concept of the Consumer Protection Act is different from the scope and object of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act. Registration of documents is regulated by the Registration Act, 1908, and payment of stamp duty by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; both deal with State revenue. The Court noted that documents presented for registration must be properly stamped; the stamp duty depends on the nature of the document; the Stamp Act defines 'Instrument' in Section 2(14) and 'Conveyance' in Section 2(10) and makes instruments chargeable under Section 3. It emphasised that the statute casts a duty on the Sub-Registrar to impound instruments not duly stamped and to refer them to the Collector. Therefore, the functions performed by the Collector and Sub-Registrar were statutory duties, not services under the Consumer Protection Act, and the appellant was not a consumer. The non-registration and non-issuance of certified copy could not constitute deficiency of service. The Supreme Court thus held that the consumer fora lacked jurisdiction, affirming the National Commission's decision and dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Definition of Consumer - Person presenting document for registration not a consumer - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) - The appellant presented a Will for registration and paid registration charges, but the Sub-Registrar impounded it as a conveyance deed and sent it to Collector of Stamps. The Supreme Court held that the consumer protection framework did not cover persons seeking performance of statutory duties under the Registration Act and Stamp Act, as these are state revenue functions, not services. Held that appellant was not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d). (Paras 1-11) B) Consumer Protection - Definition of Service - Registration and stamp duty are statutory duties, not service - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(o) - The main clause of 'service' is wide but does not include sovereign or statutory functions of the State such as registration of documents and determination of stamp duty. The Court distinguished Lucknow Development Authority and Morgan Stanley, noting different scope and object. Held that the Collector and Sub-Registrar do not render service under Section 2(1)(o). (Paras 1-11) C) Consumer Protection - Deficiency of Service - Non-registration pending stamp duty adjudication is not deficiency - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) - The non-registration of the document and non-issuance of certified copy arose from the Sub-Registrar's duty to impound insufficiently stamped instruments and refer them to the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 40. The Court held that there was no deficiency because the statute prescribed a different remedy and the Act does not cover statutory adjudication of stamp duty. (Paras 1-11) D) Stamp Duty and Registration - State Revenue - Consumer fora have no jurisdiction over Stamp Act and Registration Act matters - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Sections 2(10), 2(14), 3, 40; Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17, 18 - Registration of documents is regulated by the Registration Act, 1908 and stamp duty by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; both deal with State revenue. The Sub-Registrar is bound to impound instruments not duly stamped; the Collector determines proper stamp duty, and the appellant was required to furnish valuation details. Held that the District Forum and State Commission lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Collector of Stamps and the Sub-Registrar render 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; whether the appellant is a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d); whether there was 'deficiency of service' under Section 2(1)(g); and whether consumer fora have jurisdiction over matters relating to stamp duty and registration under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 did not apply to statutory functions of registration and stamp duty under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; the appellant was not a consumer and the Collector of Stamps did not render service; therefore, consumer fora lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act does not apply to statutory functions under Registration Act and Stamp Act
- registration and stamp duty are state revenue functions
- person presenting document for registration not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)
- Sub-Registrar and Collector of Stamps do not render service under Section 2(1)(o)
- non-registration pending stamp duty adjudication is not deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g)
- consumer fora cannot adjudicate stamp duty classification disputes
