Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/252

Harbans Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Depuyty Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Harbans Singh

09 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:252 dated 06.05.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 09.08.2023.

 

Harbans Singh Sembhi son of Shri Mohinder Singh, resident of Village Akhara, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Deputy Commissioner, Mini Secretariat, Ludhiana.
2. The District Revenue officer, Mini Secretariat, Ludhiana.
3. The District Manager, Sewa Kendre, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Harbans Singh, Advocate.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Exparte.

For OP3                         :         Sh. Harpreet Singh, Manager, Sewa Kendra,                                             Ludhiana.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant applied for the certified copies of documents including mutation No.74585 dated 29.04.2013 vide application No.111/13659/210717 dated 21.07.2017 with opposite party No.3 for which he many times visited opposite party No.3 but the officials of opposite party No.3 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to provide the information and returned his application. The complainant further stated that he again applied for the certified copies of the documents vide application No.15106807 dated 28.12.2020 which remained pending with opposite party No.3 and its officials Raman Singh and Jaspreet Singh many times dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. When the complainant checked/inspected the record from the concerned office, then it transpired that the application of the complainant has already been returned on 06.01.2021 but said Raman Singh and Jaspreet Singh kept lingering on the matter despite numerous visits of the complainant. Even the complainant asked them to check the record as the application has already been returned to their office and then they returned the application to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant moved a complaint before opposite party No.1 with copy of opposite party No.2 and 3 but no action has been taken nor the certified copies have been supplied to the complainant.  The complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.03.2021 to the opposite party but to no avail. According to the complainant, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which he has suffered harassment, mental torture and agony for which he is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the end, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to supply the certified copies of the documents and further to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2.                Notice sent to opposite party No.1 and 2 were received with report of refusal and as such, opposite party No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.09.2021.

3.                Initially, Sh. Sahil Arora, District Manager on behalf of opposite party No.3 appeared and the case was fixed for filing written statement on behalf of opposite party No.3. However, written statement was not filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 despite grant of numerous opportunities and even none turned up for opposite party No.3 and as such, opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated  03.03.2022. Later on, on 08.03.2022, opposite party No.3 filed application for setting aside exparte proceedings with permission to submit reply along with written statement, affidavit and documents. The said application was allowed vide order dated 04.08.2020 permitting opposite party No.3 to join the proceedings from the stage the complaint was pending at and written statement as well as affidavit and documents already attached with the above application was ordered to be taken on record.

                   In the written statement, opposite party No.3 took preliminary objections by assailing the complaint on the grounds of maintainability; concealment of fact;, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands etc. Opposite party No.3 stated that earlier the complainant had applied for the certified copy of documents including Mutation No.74585 dated 29.04.2013 on 21.07.2017 but the concerned department refused to supply the photocopies of the said documents as only the photocopies had been attached with the official record but the copy of mutation was sent. Again the complainant applied for the same documents on 28.12.2020 and said set of documents had been prepared on 05.01.2021. Opposite party No.3 further stated that its employee was unable to supply the same to the complainant on time as the said documents have been received from the concerned department in huge bundle and these documents have been wrongly attached with the other documents. Then the same documents were found in some another file and then supplied the same to the complainant on 22.01.2021 as such the delay in supply the documents was due to wrong placement of the documents which is a natural mistake.

                   On merits, opposite party No.3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.3 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of application dated 21.07.2017, Ex. C2 is the copy of application dated 28.12.2020, Ex. C3 is the copy of compliant written to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, Ex. C4 and Ex. C5 are the copies of letters dated 23.02.2021 of  Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Dev), Ludhiana, Ex. C6 is the copy of letter dated 09.03.2021 of Sewa Kendra, Ludhiana, Ex. C7 is the copy of legal notice dated 18.03.2021,  Ex. C8 to Ex. C10 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, Sh. Harpreet Singh, District Manager of opposite party No.3 tendered his affidavit Ex. RA along with documents Ex. R1 is copy of letter dated 21.07.2017 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                The complainant has referred to his earlier application dated 21.07.2017 in his complaint as well as in his affidavit but his grievance revolves around non-supplying of certified copies of the documents as demanded vide application No.15106807 dated 28.12.2020. Perusal of the record shows that the said certified copies were prepared on 05.01.2021 but the same could not be supplied as these prepared copies got tagged with some other documents. However, the same were traced out and were supplied to the complainant on 28.01.2021 as per letter Ex. C6. Despite receiving the documents on 28.01.2021, the complainant had been sending representations on 23.02.2021 and legal notice dated 18.03.2021. An apology was also tendered on behalf of opposite party No.3 to the complainant. The explanation offered by opposite party No.3 with regard to delay in delivering the certified copies of the documents is reasonable and plausible. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 and as such the present complaint being devoid of any merits or substance is hereby dismissed.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits or substance. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (SanjeevBatra) Member                        Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.08.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Harbans Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner                     CC/21/252

Present:       Sh. Harbans Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP1 and OP2 exparte.

                   Sh. Harpreet Singh, Manager Sewa Kendra, Ludhiana for OP3 in             person.

         

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits or substance. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (SanjeevBatra)

Member                         Member                            President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.08.2023.

Gobind Ram.