Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/141/2022

Dr. Harpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Bhavneet Bharti, (Director Principal) - Opp.Party(s)

R.N. Patwa

25 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                   Complaint No.:    141 of 2022.

                                                                   Date of institution: 22.04.2022.

                                                                   Date of decision: 25.04.2022

 

Dr. Harpreet Singh (Professor), Adesh Medical College & Hospital, N.H. 1, Mohri, Tehsil Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Dr. Bhavneet Bharti (Director Principal),

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar State Institute of Medical Science, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

2. Dr. Dasari Harish, Professor and Head Forensic Medicine, GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh.
3. Dr. Raaj Bahadur (Vice Chancellor), Baba Farid University of Health Science Faridkot Punjab.
4. Shri Alok Shekhar, Principal Secretary Medical Education Mohali, Punjab.
5. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Professor and Head Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi.

...Respondents.

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri R.N. Patwa, Adv. for the complainant.

         

ORDER:

 

1.                Heard on the maintainability of the present complaint.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are, complainant alleged, he was personally working for gain in Adesh Medical College and Hospital, NH-1, Mohri, Tehsil Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra and is a consumer, who had availed services for offline as well as online communication with the OPs. The complainant appeared for interview for the post of Professor in the department of Forensic Medicine of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar State Institute of Medical Science, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab in persuasion of his application for the same. The OPs conducted the interview on 01.03.2022 at Punjab Bhawan, Sector-3, Chandigarh and prepared the mark sheets as per performance of candidates. The complainant moved an application for obtaining certified copy of mark sheet u/s 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 along with prescribed legal fee to the OPs separately, but the OPs did not supply the mark sheet/document indicating marks obtained by the complainant during the interview. The OPs withheld the documents intentionally with malafide intention of restraining the complainant from seeking justice from the competent Court of Law. Feeling aggrieved with the act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 05.04.2022 upon the OPs for supplying certified copy of mark sheets/document containing the marks scored during the interview and appointment letters through Shri R.N. Patwa, Advocate, but the OPs did not respond or supply the documents, so demanded even after expiry of statutory period of 15 days of the notices. The complainant apprehend that the OPs have destroyed the documents/mark sheets prepared during the interview or withholding the same in order to curtail the right of the complainant for appointment and challenging the illegal appointment. The Ops being public officers and having the custody of public document ought to supply the copy on demand by a person having right to inspect together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy for its authenticity. There is deficiency for rendering services on the part of OPs by way of not supplying the certified copies of mark sheets/documents of marks obtained by the complainant during the interview and prayed that OPs be directed to supply the mark sheet/documents of marks given to the complainant by them during the interview held on 01.03.2022 and other relevant documents along with compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant.   

3.                Shri R.N. Patwa, counsel for the complainant argued that complainant appeared for interview for the post of Professor in the department of OP No.1 and OPs conducted his interview on 01.03.2022 and prepared the mark sheets as per performance of candidates. The complainant moved an application for obtaining certified copy of mark sheet u/s 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, along with prescribed legal fee, to the OPs separately, but the OPs did not supply the mark sheet/document indicating marks obtained by the complainant, during the interview. The OPs withheld the documents intentionally with malafide intention of restraining the complainant from seeking justice from the competent Court of Law. Having no another alternate, in this regard, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 05.04.2022 upon the OPs through his advocate, but the OPs did not respond or supply the documents, so demanded even after expiry of statutory period of 15 days of the notices. The complainant apprehend that the OPs have destroyed the documents/mark sheets prepared during the interview or withholding the same in order to curtail the right of the complainant for appointment and challenging the illegal appointment. The OPs being public officers and having the custody of public document ought to supply the copy on demand by a person having right to inspect together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy for its authenticity and the act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service on their part. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled A. Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 1971 Air 2303 (Supreme Court of India); Shri Keshava Gupta Vs. Coal India Limited, F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/900755 D.O.D. 04.02.2010 and Siddharth Kumar Nim Vs. Competition Commission of India, CIC/CPC01/A/2018/137114/02218 DOD 27.11.2019 (Central Information Commission.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the case file carefully.

5.                After going through the contents of the complaint, document attached with it and on hearing learned counsel for the complainant, there are two moot questions before this Commission, which requires to be decided, by this Commission, at the time of admission of the complaint. Firstly, whether the complainant is falling within the definition of consumer, as envisaged under Section 7 (i) (ii) of the Act, 2019 or not? Secondly, the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not?

6.                 Coming to the first question, whether the complainant is falling within the definition of consumer, as envisaged under Section 7 (i) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or not. Section 7 (i) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as under:-

(7) "consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

 

7.                In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant alleged that the complainant seek prescribed information from the OPs by way of filing application u/s 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, after paying prescribed legal fees through Indian Postal Orders, to the OPs and in this way, the complainant became the consumer of the OPs. However, it is pertinent to mention here that mere producing copy of Indian Postal Orders on the record, does not mean that the complainant has become the consumer of the OPs, because, there is no documentary evidence on the record, to establish that whether those Indian Postal Orders were ever received by the OPs or not, or after receiving the same, whether they ever encashed the same or not and without which, the relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant on the one hand and the OP on the other hand, after paying the alleged consideration amount, is not established on the record.  So, there is no privity of contract between the parties. Mere allegations are not sufficient, those are necessary to be proved by cogent evidence. Resultantly, the complainant is not falling within the definition of consumer as envisaged u/s 7 (i) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score.

8.                Now coming to the second question, whether, the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not. Section 1 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in this regard, is relevant, which reads as under:-

                    Short title, extent and commencement.—This Act may be called the             Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It extends to the whole of India 1[except             the State of Jammu and Kashmir] and applies to all judicial                     proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial,              2[other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act] (44 &           45 Vict., c. 58) 3[the Naval Discipline Act (29 & 30 Vict., c. 109) or                    4[***] the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934)5 6[or the                    Air Force Act] (7 Geo. 5, c. 51) but not to affidavits 7presented to any                Court or Officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator; and it shall                come into force on the first day of September, 1872.

 

9.                From perusal of definition of above Section, it is clear that Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applies only to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts martial and this Section is not meant for seeking information, by the general public. The complainant or any general public can seek any information, under Right To Information Act, from any organization or department. Moreover, if the OPs had not provided him the requisite information/documents, under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, then the complainant was required to file appeal in this regard before the concerned higher Appellate Authority, but the complainant did not do so, rather, filed the present complaint, which is not maintainable before this Commission. Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score also. The case laws cited (supra), by counsel for the complainant, is not at par with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, being rested on different footings.

10.              In view of above discussion, the present complaint is not fit for admission, so the same is hereby dismissed, at the stage of admission, on the ground of non-maintainability of the same. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to raise his grievances before appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction. File be consigned to the records.

Dated: 25.04.2022.     

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                    DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.