Haryana

StateCommission

A/109/2016

RAMESH CHAND SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CMO,PALWAL - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      109 of 2016

Date of Institution:      01.02.2016

Date of Decision :       21.04.2016

 

Ramesh Chand Sharma s/o Sh. Modram, Resident of Indri, Tehsil Nuh (Mewat).

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

Chief Medical Officer, Palwal, District Palwal. 

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               None.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal being received by post, notice was issued to the appellant. Yet none has come present on behalf of the appellant-complainant.

2.      This appeal of un-successful complainant/appellant has been preferred against the order dated January 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint was dismissed.

3.      The grievance of the appellant before the District Forum was that he had applied to the Chief Medical Officer, Palwal-Opposite Party/respondent, for issuance of copy of Birth Certificate of Smt. Shanti Devi d/o Sh. Paras Ram s/o Sh. Lala Ram, who was stated to have been born on 28.05.1955. The respondent failed to supply the copy of birth certificate. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.      The respondent contested complaint by filing reply stating that the personal information of third party could not be provided to the appellant because the appellant has no relation with the person whose date of birth was sought by him (appellant). The appellant also filed application before the Permanent Lok Adalat and also filed application under the Right to Information Act but the same were rejected by the authorities. More so, the concerned person whose date of birth was sought also filed objection against the application of the appellant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

6.      By seeking copy of birth certificate initially under the RTI Act and subsequently by approaching to Permanent Lok Adalat and being un-successful, the appellant could not be termed as ‘consumer’. The services rendered by the Government in day-to-day functioning, can not be termed as service provider.  Health Department/Chief Medical Officer, is only discharging statutory function under the Act and is not performing a ‘service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The fee paid, if any, for obtaining the Birth Certificate is not by way of consideration for service but is only a statutory levy for meeting the expenses of administration and enforcement of the regulatory machinery set up under statutory provisions and rules governing the regulation in the larger public interest. The approach made by the appellant seeking relief from Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act is, therefore, manifestly misconceived and the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable under the Act.  It is dismissed.

 

Announced 21.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL