Date of Judgement Dt.27.1.2014

J U D G E M E N T

By Sri  S.C.Nayak, P.

This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

            The case of the complainant is that he had applied for certified copy of mutation case No.496/12 on 17.10.2012. But till the date of filing of this case he has not been supplied with the same, though it was an urgent copy application.  But there is no document in this regard on the case record.

            Again on 1.11.2012 he applied for certified copy of the same through urgent application, but the same has not been supplied. It is also alleged that the certified copy of the said case has been supplied to Narasingh Sharma, a party of the said case on the same day. Hence the complainant, has claimed Rs.75,000/- as compensation from the O.Ps.

            The O.Ps. have filed version. According to them petitioner has not applied for copy application on 17.10.2012. Narasingh Sharma has also not applied for any certified copy of the same on 17.10.2012. According to them the complainant applied for certified copy on 1.11.2012. Soon after receipt of copy application, requisition was made to the Additional Tahasildar Dunguripali to supply concerned case record. The same was received on 8.11.2012 vide letter No.163 of Additional Tahasildar, Dunguripali. After scrutiny of the case record with reference to copy application urgent copy was given on 14.11.2012 as 13.11.2012

-:  2  :-

was a holiday. It is also alleged that the complainant has preferred appeal against the said mutation case which is now subjudice. Hence the O.Ps. claim that they have not committed deficiency of service and as such this case should be rejected.

            As the complainant remained absent during hearing, we have heard the learned G.P. for the O.Ps. and perused the materials on record.

            Admittedly the complainant applied for certified copy on 1.11.2012. The concerned record was received on 8.11.2012 vide letter No.163 of Additional Tahasildar, Dunguripali. Copy of the said letter is on record. Copy has been supplied on 14.11.2012 as 13.11.2012 was a holiday so there has been a delay of 4 days, which the O.Ps. explain was due to scrutiny of the case record with reference to copy application.  It is alleged that in the mean time the complainant has preferred appeal against the order of said mutation case and it is now subjudice. So the complainant is not prejudiced. The complainant has not participated in the hearing of this case though sufficient opportunity was given to him. So the averment of the O.Ps. goes unchallenged. In the aforesaid scenario we are not in a position to fix any liability on the O.Ps.

            But before parting with this case we would like to observe that urgent copy applications of applicants should be dealt by the O.Ps. in an emergent manner and not in a lackadaisical manner. All efforts should be made to give the urgent copies during the course of the day and if that is not possible, reasons for the same must be assigned. Save as aforesaid, this complaint case is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

            Dated the 27^th day of January 2014

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                        I agree.                          and corrected by me.

                                                  Sri R.K.Sahu                       Sri S.C. Nayak

                                                     Male Member                             President

                                                       Dt.27.1.2014                           Dt.27.1.2014