Date of filing:-06/03/2017.

Date of Order:-05/10/2018.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 11 of 2017.

Dayanidhi Sahu, S/o-Late Arakhita Sahu, aged about 73(seventy three) years, Occupation –Cultivation, R/o-Kubedega, P.s/Tahasil-Bheden, Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.

Vrs

1. The Tahasildar, Bargarh, Bargarh Tahasil, Bargarh having its Officer at Bargarh Po/Ps/Dist –Bargarh.

2. Sadananda Bhoi, Senior Clerk, Bargarh Tahasil At/Po/Ps/Tahasil/Dist:- Bargarh

..... ...... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri S.P.Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties:- Sri S.K.Naik, Advocate with other Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.05/10/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief Facts of the case ;-

The case of the Complainant in short is that the Complainant is the owner of some lands vide Khata No-1469 and 1470 which is based upon some ROR and registered gift Deed, partition Deed and the Decree of Civil Court and some more documents too. But somehow some other persons have managed to sell the same lands to some different person without having any right title and interest in any manner behind his back, to which he has preferred appeal in the court of Sub-Collector vide No.12 of 2014 and review petition vide No.1(one) of 2016 to quash the same Mutation cases and those cases are pending, for which he has applied for some relevant documents from the Tahasildar, Bargarh for reference by paying required amount of court fees of Rs.3/-(Rupees three)only, who is the custodian of the same but in spite of his repeated reminder and application the Opposite Parties did not supply him with the same, which in his view amounts to deficiencies in rendering him service for which has filed the case before the forum claiming Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only as compensation relying on the application Dt.23.12.2016, Dt.04.01.2017, and Dt. 16.01.2017.

Having gone through the Complaint and the submission of the learned senior Counsel of the Complainant the case was admitted and Notice was served upon the Opposite Parties and in response they appeared before the Forum and filed their version.

The versions of the Opposite Parties are a completely denial one having mentioning therein that the case is not maintainable in the Forum since the Complainant is not a consumer and the alleged fees which he claims to have filed is not a consideration amount against which he can be termed as a consumer as such court fees are for augmentation of Government revenue, further more the Complainant could have applied before the Appellate Court to call for those documents for it’s perusal if at all is filed before the Sub-Collector and also claims therein that since the case as has been mentioned by him is an quasi judicial matter cannot be raised before the present Forum hence prayed for dismissal of the same.

Having gone through the complaint and the versions and the documents available in the record and on hearing the counsels for both the Parties. We are of the view to consider the case in the following points .

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer ?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief ?

On perusal of the materials available in the record and the submission of the respective counsels for the Parties, it came to our Notice that the complaint relates to different cases of different provision of law of the Civil Procedure Code and Revenue Laws and further more the appeal against his claims as is contended in the complaint is pending before the Revenue Authority, And the claims of the Complainant to obtain some documents for it references from the Opposite Parties against the said payments of court fees does not entitle him as a consumer because the same court fees does not amounts to payments of consideration amount to entitle him as a consumer for the purpose of the case in hand but the same is meant for augmentation of government revenue, the same could have been raised before the proper Forum, as such the case is not maintainable in the present Forum and such of our view has been fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in KLT 2006(3) 897 wherein the distinction between the statutories duties and general service have been clarified, hence our view is expressed against the Complainant.

Since we have already discussed the matter in detail in our foregoing paragraphs and have opined against the Complainant in view of the facts that the matter relating to the documents, asked for is sub-judice before the Appellate Court, in the proper Forum, as such the application with regard to the same cannot be interfered in to by the Forum, hence our view is expressed against the Complainant and is liable to be dismissed.

Hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the same s dismissed being devoid of merit. And the same is pronounced in the Open Forum and disposed off to-day on Dt. 05/10/2018.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

         ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                      P r e s i d e n t.

                                                                             I agree,

                                                   ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                                                                M e m b e r (W)