Delhi

North East

CC/6/2024

Rajendra Singh Tomar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Commissioner/Public Officer - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 06/24

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Rajendra Singh Tomar R/o I-26/1, St. No. 10, Brahampuri, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Commissioner/ Public Officer Nagar Parishad, District- Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan-322001	Opposite Party

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party  i.e. Commissioner/ Public Officer, Nagar Parishad, District- Sawai Madhopur. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant sent through registered post an application dated 04.10.23 under section 74 and section 76 of Indian Evidence Act to the Opposite party for obtaining certified copies of public documents.The Complainant has also submitted a postal order of Rs. 100/-as a fee with the said applicationand a registry envelope bearing his particulars and stamp of Rs.50/-.It has further been stated that as per the tracking report of the above letter, the said letter has been received by the office of the Opposite Party on 09.10.2023. It is alleged that despite the receipt of the above noted application alongwith postal order as a fee by the Opposite Party and lapse of stipulated period of time under the law, the Complainant has not been provided the required documents till date.  On being aggrieved, the Complainant served a legal notice in the office of Opposite Party on 16.11.23through registered post with a copy to the senior officer of Opposite Party i.e. District Collector, Sawai Madhpur. It is submitted that even after the service of legal notice, the Opposite Party has neither sent any reply nor has made available the required documents nor has paid a single penny to the complainant till date.
2. On being aggrieved the Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that the Opposite Party has failed to fulfil their duties towards public as public servant and misused her authority as a public servant and has caused physical and mental harassment as well as financial loss to the Complainant. It is prayed by the Complainant that Opposite Party be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing physical and mental agony and financial loss and also Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
3. We have heard the Complainant and perused the file. The grievance of the Complainant is that the complainant applied to the Opposite party for supply of certified copies of public documents under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but the Opposite Party neither reverted nor supplied the required documents. The Complainant has submitted that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019   by virtue of the fact that he has paid the required fee to the Opposite Party for the issuance of certified copies of certain documents and the Opposite Party has committed deficiency of service by not complying the provision i.e. section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is also alleged that even after the service of legal notice, the Opposite Party has neither sent any reply nor has made available the required documents nor has paid a single penny to the complainant till date.
4. The Complainant has filed the present complaint claiming to be a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019and seeking compensation from the Opposite Party i.e. Commissioner/ Public Officer, Nagar Parishad, District- Sawai Madhopur.
5. The Complainant has also cited a case law in support of his claim. It has been stated that in the said judgement, hon’ble state commission, Orissa in similar matter considered the complainant as consumer and held a public officer liable for not providing certified copies despite payment of required fee.
6. On the point, we are of the considered view that the above citation isnot helpful to the Complainant in view of the fact that in this context, we are bound by the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by full bench of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter Secretary, Bar Council Of U.P. Vs. Ajay Pandey (R.P. no. 2028 of 2012) alongwith other similar petitions and applicationswherein people had claimed compensation from the Public Information Officer of various public authorities on varying grounds like delayed or unsatisfactory information etc. Hon’ble National Commission has held that “no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a consumer forum.”
7. In view of above case law and discussion, we are of the considered view that as the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of aforesaid nature, the present complaint is not maintainable.
8. Hence, present complaint is dismissed accordingly, with liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum / Court in accordance with law.
9. Order announced on 24.01.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)              President