Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/50

AMI CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

DISTRICT COLLECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

Tulsi Dass

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

            Complaint No. :           50

Date of Institution:       15.02.2017

Date of Decision :        28.08.2017

 

Ami Chand aged about 38 years, s/o Puran Chand s/o Parbhati Ram, r/o Dogar Basti, Street no. 3/R, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. State of Punjab through District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot.
2. Smt Chhinderpal, concerned Clerk Births and Deaths Branch, Municipal Council, Faridkot.
3. Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Faridkot
4. Civil Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Faridkot.

                                            ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh. P. Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Tulsi Dass, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3,

                   OP-1 and 4 Exparte.

 ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to issue death certificate regarding death of his father and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that his father died on 27.12.2016 and entry regarding his death was entered at Sr no. 806 in Shantiwan Dogar Basti, Faridkot and copy of same has also been sent by Shantiwan to Municipal Council, Faridkot. After obtaining the said copy of entry register, complainant completed all formalities and submitted the application and documents with OP-2 and 3 on 12.01.2017, but when complainant approached the office of OPs alongwith his brother to obtain death certificate of his father, OP-2 returned the application saying it is late case and necessary sanction be taken from Higher Authorities. Complainant tried to convince them that they have done their duty within stipulated period, but concerned clerk did not agree with them and insulted both complainant as well his brother and said that she is unable to issue death certificate. Despite several requests OP-2 and 3 did not issue death certificate in the name of his deceased father and finally refused to accept their request for releasing death certificate. All this act of Ops has caused great loss, harassment and mental agony to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and he has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.02.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

 4                                                      Notice issued to OP-1 and 4 stands served. But no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-1 and OP-4 either in person or through counsel, therefore, vide order dated 25.04.2017, both OP-1 and 4 were proceeded against exparte.

5                                                    OP-2 and OP-3 appeared through counsel and filed reply wherein took preliminary objection that complainant does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Forum and no consideration has been taken by them from complainant for rendering services and therefore, complaint in hand is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, OP-2 and 3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant never completed the requisite formalities for obtaining death certificate of his father, rather complainant applied for certificate, after the stipulated period. as per rules, complainant should have applied within 21 days of death, but complainant applied for same after expiry of 21 days. As per procedure , rules and regulations, if certificate is applied after 21 days, then it is to be applied with Suvidha Centre. Complainant was duly informed about this fact and he applied with Suvidha Centre on 16.02.2017 and immediately on receipt of file from Suvidha Centre, it was sent to CMO office for verification. CMO, Office Faridkot returned the file on 22.02.2017 as it was having some technical fault and then, said file was  again sent to Suvidha Centre for removing the defect and on removal of defect by Suvidha Centre, said file was again sent to CMO office,  who verified the same and gave sanction on 28.02.2017 and on same day i.e 28.02.2017, death certificate was issued to complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs, rather complainant himself applied after due date and he can not be given benefit of his own wrongs. It is further averred that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and allegations made by him are incorrect. All the other allegations and allegations with regard to relief sought too are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6                                                      Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-1, documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                       Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Chhinderpal Kaur as Ex Op-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 14 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2 and 4.

8                                                                   We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the  documents placed on record by parties.

9                                                     Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that father of complainant died on 27.12.2016 and entry regarding his death was entered at Sr no. 806 in Shantiwan Faridkot and copy of same has also been sent by Shantiwan to Municipal Council, Faridkot. After obtaining the said copy of entry register, complainant completed all formalities and submitted the application and documents with OP-2 and 3 on 12.01.2017, but when complainant approached the office of OPs alongwith his brother to obtain death certificate of his father, OP-2 returned the application saying it is late case and necessary sanction be taken from Higher Authorities. Complainant tried to convince them that they have done their duty within stipulated period, but concerned clerk did not agree with them and insulted both complainant as well his brother and said that she is unable to issue death certificate. Despite several requests OP-2 and 3 did not issue death certificate in the name of his deceased father and finally refused to accept their request for releasing death certificate. All this amounts to deficiency in service and he has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 6.

10                                          To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 and OP-3 asserted that complainant does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Forum and no consideration has been taken by them from complainant for rendering services and therefore, complaint is not maintainable in the present form. They have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant never completed the requisite formalities for obtaining death certificate of his father, rather he applied for certificate, after the stipulated period. As per rules, complainant should have applied within 21 days of death, but complainant applied for death certificate after expiry of 21 days. As per procedure, rules and regulations, if certificate is applied after 21 days, then it is to be applied with Suvidha Centre. Complainant was duly informed about this fact and he applied with Suvidha Centre on 16.02.2017 and immediately on receipt of file from Suvidha Centre, it was sent to CMO office for verification. CMO, Office Faridkot returned the file on 22.02.2017 as it was having some technical fault and then, said file was again sent to Suvidha Centre for removing the defect and on removal of defect by Suvidha Centre, said file was again sent to CMO office,  who verified the same and gave sanction on 28.02.2017 and on same day i.e 28.02.2017, death certificate was issued to complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs, rather complainant himself applied after due date and he can not be given benefit of his own wrongs. All the other allegations are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

11                                                 We have heard the counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence produced on record by complainant and OP-2 and 3. The case of the complainant is

12                                   To prove this case, complainant has relied upon documents Ex C-3, which proves the fact that father of complainant died on 28.12.2016 and he got recorded an entry pertaining to his death in Shantiwan Register. ExC-2, also proves the pleading of complainant that complainant applied for obtaining death certificate in the name of his father alongwith folio of Shantiwan Register on 12.01.2017. Ex C-4 is the complaint filed by complainant before Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot wherein he has requested for releasing the death certificate. Ex C-6 is the report of enquiry conducted by Deputy Commissioner Office, Faridkot in respect of complaint of complainant which clearly states the fact that complainant applied for death certificate in the name of his father within stipulated period of 21 days, but there is delay on the part of OPs on lame excuses, which OPs are refusing to accept. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case. Documents produced by complainant seem to be authentic and there appears to be no doubt regarding the allegations of complainant. OPs are deficient in providing services to complainant and have also failed to accept their negligence. Moreover, in the light of document Ex C-6 wherein OP-2 has herself admitted her fault, plea taken by Ops that complainant did not apply within specified time has no relevance.

13                                               We are fully convinced with the evidence and arguments of Counsel for the complainant. The complainant succeeds in proving his case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against Op-2 and Op-3 and stands dismissed against OP-1 and 4. The OP-2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs.2000/-to complainant on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.1000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 28.08.2017

                                                Member                               President

                                               (P Singla)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)