DOF.3.1.2009 DOO.18.3. 2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this, the 18th day of March 2011 CC.5/2009 V.P.Chandran, “Anaswara, Pallikulam, Chirakkal Amsom, Desom, P.O.Chirakkal Complainant (Rep. by Adv.A.V.Balachandran) Special Grade Secretary, Chirakkal Grama Panchayath, P.O.Chirakkal. (Rep. by Adv.Abhaya Kumar) Opposite parties O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of `82,500 as damages together with cost of this proceeding. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant is a resident of Chirakkal Grama Panchayath who applied for birth certificate of his daughter Anjana V.P. in May 2008 before the Panchayath. But the opposite party instead of issuing the certificate issued a reply stating that the birth register for the year 1982 was not available in their office. The complainant made request to issue the extract in comparison with the earlier extract issued by opposite party. But the attitude of the opposite party was negative and he was reluctant to issue the birth certificate in comparison with the earlier one. Complainant was in urgent need of certificate. If the complainant has not produced his daughter’s birth certificate issued within the period of 6 months her visa will not stamped and her family life would be in trouble. Since it was not issued by opposite party he was constrained to approach Hon’ble High Court of Kerala to give direction to issue birth certificate in comparison with the extract issued by the opposite party earlier. Hon’ble High Court pleased to direct the opposite party to issue birth certificate based upon the earlier certificate issued by the opposite party. Since he was also compelled to approach the Hon’ble High court, he was compelled to spend huge amount for this purpose. Hence lawyer notice was issued demanding to pay ` 82,000/- Opposite party replied with vexatious contentions and the matter not settled. The rejection of application of complainant is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: - The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He concealed so many facts closely connected with the complaint. As per the records kept in the office of Panchayath it was found that the complainant had submitted an application for issuing birth certificate of his daughter Anjana V.P. on 22.12.06. A fee of ` 9 for issuing the said certificate also paid. But the then Registrar who could not find the birth register for the year 1982 on search after making such an entry on the back side of the application of the complainant issued a birth certificate on 30.1.07 on the basis of an old certificate of Birth of the said Anjana on 13.6.1985. The complainant had concealed these facts deliberately. A certificate of birth could be issued only under section 17 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 on search of Birth Register. The complainant again submitted another application on 5.5.08 for issuing birth certificate On verification of the office records this opposite party could realize the history of the case and accordingly without receiving certificate fee from him the complainant was asked to come after few days. Opposite party made all the efforts to find out the Birth Register of 1982 but in vain. When again complainant approached him he was informed by opposite party that the register of 1982 could not be traced out. Complainant asked to issue certificate on the basis of the certificate obtained on 31.1.07, but it was refused as per section 17 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969. It was not possible to issue certificate without verifying the birth register of 1982. Preparation of birth certificate of daughter of the complainant was not possible. Opposite party was working in good faith and the application of the complainant was closed with B4/08 order. Hon’ble High court has not quashed the order B4/08. On receipt of B4/08 order complainant could approach the District Registrar or the Chief Registrar for the relief. But complainant opted to approach Hon’ble High Court. Chief Registrar can order to issue birth certificate but complainant did not approach Chief Registrar for which opposite party is not liable. Birth certificate has been issued immediately after getting the order of High Court and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence as Exts. A1 to A8 and B1 to B4. Issue Nos.1 to 3 The case of the complainant is that he approached opposite party for getting birth certificate of his daughter. But his application was refused .The certificate obtained by complainant earlier that produced has not been considered. It was rejected on the ground that the concerned birth register 1982 has not been traced out. It is contended by the opposite party that he was acting in good faith and honestly discharging the duty. The certificate of birth can be issued only under section 17 of Register of Births and Deaths Act 1969. According to section 17 birth certificates has to be issued by stating as follows: “This is to certify that the following information has been taken from the Original records of birth”. Hence it was not possible for preparing the birth certificate of the complainant’s daughter since the birth register of 1982 has been missing. Complainant later obtained certificate on the basis of the order of Hon’ble High Court. The material question that deserves for consideration is that whether it was possible on the part of concerned official to issue a birth certificate merely on the basis of earlier birth certificate obtained by him from the Panchayath. In the strict sense a birth certificate can only be issued as per section 17 of registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969. This section insists that the issuing authority should certify the particulars entered in the certificate have been taken from the original record. In the present case the birth of daughter of complainant has been registered in the year 1982 . But this register dhas been found lost from the office of the opposite party. Since it is not available it is not possible to take or gather information directly from the concerned original register. Under such circumstances, technically speaking, it cannot be found fault with the concerned officer for not issuing the birth certificate and rejecting the application stating the actual truth of loss of register. However it cannot be ignored that as far as Chirakal Grama Panchayath is concerned this problem aroused not of the 1st time. The very same complainant applied for birth certificate in the year 2006 and issued birth certificate on 3.11.2007. Ext.,B1 reveals that the birth certificate issued under section 17 upon Ext.B1 application that the then issuing officer has made endorsement of the loss and then the certificate issued on the basis of the original certificate which was earlier issued on 11.6.1985, since the birth register of 1982 could not be traced out. But when the same applicant applied for the same certificate on May 2008 for the purpose of passport the application was rejected on the ground which was once over come by the same panchayath without objection. In other words the issue of missing of register and its possible consequences is known to panchayth at least rightfrom 22.12.06. Rejection of application of complainant by the opposite party reveals that right from 22.12.06, opposite party has not taken any steps to found a permanent remedial measure to deal with the problem that arose out of the said missing of register. It can be seen that the document is lost from the office of the panchyath. Who is responsible for this? And who is answerable? It is a question of future of entire children whose names were registered in the year 1982. It s a very serious mater which cannot be ignored by a body of local self govt. People cannot be left abandoned to be suffered by wrong or negligence done or happened by the panchayath forever. It is understandable that certain contingencies may arise and it may take some time to find a solution for the same. It does not mean that the opposite party is at liberty to left open the issue unsolved forever. If that be so it can only be considered as a continuous negligence maintained by opposite party with knowledge of loss of documents and its consequences, leaving sufferings to the local people. Hence it is a relevant aspect to examine what all attempts has been made by the opposite party and what extent it has reached so as to measure, the degree of deficiency of service. The opposite party has not taken any interest to place materials before the Forum in order to weigh the situation. It has to be taken into account that this is not a problem which is impossible to do. It is a problem that is highly warranted a permanent solution, without which similar problems will go on continue for ever. Opposite party is liable to make sincere attempt to find a solution removing this uncertainty. Opposite party admitted the fact that District Registrar or Chief Registrar can solve the issue. Then what is the hurdle to utilize this power for to find a permanent solution. What prevents the opposite party from attempting to find a solution in touch with this authority? Does it mean that opposite party is an isolated body? A deep analysis of the available materials on record helps to realize only that the way in which the officers are dealing with the scorching problems of the common people are not dynamic which is warranted for the successful functioning of a welfare state taking into account the ground reality for satisfying the ever growing needs of the people. It cannot be ignored that the panchayath is the basic unit of the govt. through which the people re directly attached as far as their day to day common life is concerned. In the light of above discussion we are under the impression that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The quantum of damage is not a principle question in this matter. It is true that departmental remedial measure has not been exhausted before the complainant. Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court pleased to direct the opposite party to issue certificates but it is notable that there was no order as to compensation or cost though the actual issue raised is solved. Forum considers that the fight brought before the Forum as a fight for principle and the quantum of damage remains to be secondary. Hence we are of opinion that a nominal amount of `1000 as compensation will meet the end of justice. Complainant is also entitled for `1000 as cost of these proceedings. Hence the issues 1 to 3 are partly favorable to complainant. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to pay `1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation together with `1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 12% interest upon the whole amount from the date of complaint till the payment. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days of pronouncement of this order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Copy of the birth certificate of V.P.Anjana A2. Letter dt.22.5.08 sent by OP A3. Copy of the Order in WPC.17426/08of Hon’ble High court of Kerala. A4. Receipt dt.19.7.08 issued by OP A5. Copy of Lawyer notice sent to OP A6 and 7. Postal receipt and postal AD A8. Reply notice sent by OP Exhibits for the opposite party: B1. Copy of the application submitted by complainant dt.22.12.06. B2. Copy of the certificate issued by OP B3. Copy of the application for birth certificate submitted by Complainant dt.5.5.08. B4. Copy of the application for birth certificate submitted by complainant dt.19.7.08. Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: DW1.Purushothaman /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kannur. | 
