Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/116

Jaspreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anti Corruption Branch - Opp.Party(s)

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

RUPNAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.        :116of 02.08.2022

             Date of Decision                     :24.03.2023

Jas Preet Singh aged about 66 years S/o Shri Kalyan Singh Resident of #246 A, New Shampura Colony, Near Shenai Palace, village Shampura Tehsil and District Rupnagar.

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Anti Corruption Branch Government of NCT of Delhi Vikas Bhawan Civil Line Delhi 54.
2. Chief Vigilance Officer, Municipal Corporation, New Delhi, South, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi.

      …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         In person

For OPs                          :         Ex parte

 

ORDER

PER  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. In the present complaint, the counsel for complainant has averred thatcomplainant made a complaint to OP on 02.07.2018 regarding plot No.C-80, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi of which complainant is a co sharer and the plot is amalgamated one as per record.  Complainant has deposited Rs.100/- in form of IPO No.534498165 on 02.06.2022 and promised to pay double amount of all required public documents and ready to pay any other fee for the same.  Complainant requested the OP on 02.06.2022 to supply the certified copies of investigation with respect of inquiry conducted and received unsatisfactory and misleading replies.  Complainant sought certified copies of public documents regarding investigation under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act.  Complainant is an advocate and complainant has issued a registered AD legal notice U/s 80 CPC on 12.06.2022 to OP to supply the required copies.  Complainant received No.3932/ID/68/2022/RTI/ACB dated 07.06.2022, received on 14.06.2022, the complainant sought public documents under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act and not under RTI.  Similarly, complainant received reply No.PIO(Vig)/RTI No.37/MCD/2022/244 dated 28.06.2022 received on 02.07.2022 and again it is mentioned that complainant sought public document under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act and not under RTI.  a) Certified copy of site plan/Naksha of building of plot No.C-80 and who grated approval to this illegal structure, (b) Certified copy of partition of plot, if any (c) Certified copy of all documents annexed/submitted by complainant with above complaints to OP (d) Certified copy of orders issued to Investigation Officer to conduct the inquiry by competent authority of Anti corruption Branch New Delhi (e) Certified copy of memo letter issued to complainant, if any (f)  Certified copy of memo, letter issued to Ms.Suman Mehta, Vendor wife of Mrs. Vijay Mehta and MsManpreetkaur daughter of Sh.Kalyan Singh Vendee for their statements (g) Supply certified copies of written reply of vendor and vendee to the IO (h) Certified copy of any other document which the authority deems fit to supply (i) Supplies the outcome/conclusion of inquiry to know if the building of said plot is legal or illegal in the eyes of law and in case of illegal building that any FIR has been registered and why this discrimination with the complainant (j)  Name the employee of MCD who allowed building to construct on amalgamated plot (k) Allow the complainant to inspect the concern file only after the receipt of documents requested.  Complainant has not received any proper reply from OP till date of deposit extra fee for certified copies.  Lastly, prayer has been made that the Ops be directed to Supply certified copies of public documents a to k , pay Rs.50000/- as harassment, litigation expenses as court deems fit.   
2. Upon notice, Sh.OmDutt Head Constable appeared for OP and file some documents.  Thereafter, on application of complainant, OP-2 impleaded. OP-2 has filed written reply. OP-2 has submitted in reply that in absence of better particulars from Commission or from complainant, this office has made attempts to find the complaint Sh.Jaspreet Singh, if received earlier in this office.  On scrutiny of records, it has been found that some complaints dated 02.07.2018, 05.2020 were received.  If the matter listed with he Commission pertain to said mentioned issue, the same be further pursued with Dy. Commissioner, West Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2^nd Floor, Sahib Singh Verma Nigam Bhawan, Shivajit Enclave, New Delhi – 110027 who is Competent Authority under whose jurisdiction the impugned property is situated.  Lastly, prayer has been made that appearance of Chief Vigilance Officer, MCD may be dispensed with in the interest of justice.
3.  Thereafter, Ops have failed to appear and proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 01.03.2023.
4. In order to prove his respective versions, complainant produced on the file his respective documents.
5. Ex parte arguments of counsel for complainant heard.  File also carefully perused.
6. During arguments, the contentions of learned counsel for complainants are similar to the pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same. We have also perused Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act which is reproduced as :-76. Certified copies of public documents.–– Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees there for, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
7. Further, issue for consideration before us is whether complainant is consumer or not? To solve this issue.  The avowed objective of the Consumer Protection (CP) Act was to afford speedy and affordable justice to consumer, shorn of technicalities, so that consumers would be able to argue their complaints in person without the need of engaging an advocate. It is because of this reason that the Act does not provide any formats for complaints or applications. The Supreme Court has said that technicalities require to be eschewed by the consumer fora and the National Commission has observed that even a letter can be treated as a complaint.  Unfortunately, over the years, the consumer fora are losing sight of the intent and purpose of the Act are often becoming hyper-technical. Some of the retired judges who preside over the consumer fora try to bring in technicalities which they have practised all their lives in the civil courts, and thereby frustrate the consumer movement.
8. Here, we deal with some judgments which will illustrate how consumer fora should follow a simple procedure, merely observing the principles of natural justice, devoid of all technicalities. In the case of S P Aggarwal v/s The Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow (FA No. 478 of 2005 decided on March 31, 2010), the National Commission was required to decide whether the proceedings under the CP Act required a detailed affidavit to be filed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), or a short affidavit would suffice.  Aggarwal had filed a complaint before the UP State Commission alleging medical negligence. The State Commission dismissed the complaint because the affidavit filed by the complainant was very short and not in accordance with the provisions contained of Order XIX of the CPC. In appeal, the National Commission observed that the provisions of Order XIX of the CPC cannot be strictly applied to the proceedings before the consumer fora. It held that the State Commission had taken a hyper-technical view in rejecting the affidavit as it had not been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the CPC and the annexures filed along with the affidavit had not been not dealt with in detail as required under the CPC. The National Commission held that the affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant were entitled to due consideration on the basis of the intrinsic value of the documents filed……………….
9. We place reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Malay Kumar GangulyvsSukumar Mukherjee & Ors decided on  7 August, 2009 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1191-1194 OF 2005, whereby  it is observed that “……………………. observed that even though the proceedings under the CP Act are judicial proceedings, they are not civil courts. Hence, disputes have to be tried in a summary manner, following the principles of natural justice, and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to the consumer fora ……………………..”
10. Since the main grievance of the complainant against the OP is that they have failed to provide him certain documents under Section 76 of Indian evidence Act and has desired that the suitable direction should be given to the OP office for providing the documents to them under concerned section of the Indian Evidence Act is our view this Commission is not vested with any power to issue any such direction to the OP under the Indian Evidence Act.  The proper remedy on the part of complainant would be to approach the appropriate court for issue of any such directions.
11. In view of the above, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and same stands disposed with no order as to costs.
12. Copy of order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:24.03.2023

          (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                  (Kuljit Singh)

          Member                                           President