District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 25/2015
Smt. Moumita Das
D/o Late Dipti Bhushan Das
Vill. & PO: Bolla,
& P.S.: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
The B.L. & L.R.O.
Balurghat Block
PO: Beltalapark,
PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant ……………… - Shri Samit Bhowmick &
- Shri Benoy Brata Bhowmik
For OP ……………… - Shri Debabrata Karmakar
Date of Filing : 06.04.2015
Date of Disposal : 17.09.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 17.09.2015
The case of the complainant is that the complainant filed a petition in the office of B.L. & L.R.O. Balurghat Block for recording of her name and proceeding u/s 51 A(4) of W.B.L.R. Act, started and a prayer was rejected and an appeal was preferred before Ld. D.L & L.R.O. and appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the complainant visited the office of the B.L. & L.R.O. to obtain the certified copy of the judgement of the case and on 6.1.2014 an application was made to that effect, in spite of receiving the said application, the B.L. & L.R.O. did not supply the certified copy of Case No.78/2005 u/s 51 A(4) of W.B.L.R. Act. Accordingly, the complainant has prayed for relief for direction upon the OP for providing the certified copy as well as for compensation.
The OP contested the case by filing a written version whereby the complainant denied all the allegations leveled against the OP. It was stated that the case is not maintainable and does not fall within the ambit of section 12 of the CP Act, 1986. It was specifically stated that the complainant applied for certified copy of the judgement but did not mention the act relating to the said application. Accordingly, the application was rejected since it was not filed properly. The office did not receive any process fee in advance from the complainant for supplying the certified copy since process fee is realized after availability of the case record. The office only received the application fee that cannot be taken into consideration as process fee and since it is vague one, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined :-
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the benefit u/s 12 of the CP Act,
- Whether the necessary direction is to be given upon the OP for supplying copy of the judgement?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP?
Contd…P/3
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and for avoidance of repetition of same facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submits that since the complainant filed an application for obtaining the certified copy and fee was paid by the complainant. Therefore, OP is duty bound to provide the certified copy, not discharging of the official function by the OP vis-a-vis non-supplying of the copy to the complainant, in spite of receiving fee tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of OP and necessary direction may be given by this Forum upon the OP to issue the certified copy of the judgement and also the complainant will be entitled to get the cost for harassment faced by her.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP submits that section 2 (d) of the CP Act, does not approve that the complainant will be entitled to get any relief from this Forum and the case is not maintainable. Apart from, the said fact that Ld. Lawyer brought to my notice that the OP along with written version filed the xerox copy of the note sheet wherefrom it is evident that the application was not filed in proper form and accordingly OP gave a direction upon the complainant to file the application properly so that the record can be traced out. From the materials on record it appears that dealing assistant informed the OP that the application was not made properly. OP informed in the sheet note that whenever the complainant will come to the office she will be informed to rectify the defect but in spite of such direction upon the complainant, she rushed to this Forum praying for relief which cannot be provided to the complainant since the CP Act does not give such power to the complainant to seek her redress in this Forum.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that only an application was made praying for obtaining certified copy by paying court fee and no process fee received by the OP and thereby the OP is not duty bound to come within this act for attraction the
Contd…P/4
provision of section 12 of the said act. Apart from the said fact that it is found from the materials on record that the application was not made by the complainant properly and instead of rectifying her defect in getting the certified copy of the judgement, the complainant rushed to this Forum. Since no process fee was levied from the complainant for providing the certified copy of the judgment to the complainant by the OP, therefore we hold that the case was filed on the basis of misconceived idea and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief from this Forum.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.25/2015 is dismissed on contest. Parties are to bear their own costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(S. N. Chatterjee)
President
I concur,
……Sd/-..……
(S. Ganguli)
Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
