Delhi

North

CC/40/2024

SANJEEV RAKHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER B 11MCD - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.40/2024

Date of filing: 15.02.2024

Date of Order: 06.03.2024

In the matter of

Sanjeev Rakhra

S/o Late Shri K. J. Rakhra,

R/o 17/5 Ground Floor,

Ram Nagar, Krishna Nagar,

Delhi-1100051                                  …                         Complainant

 

Versus

 

Executive Engineer (B)-11 (MCD)

City-SP. Zone, Nigam Bhawan,

2nd floor, Old Hindu College,

Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006           …                         Opposite Party

 

ORDER

06.03.2024

Present: Complainant in person

 

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant has alleged that Executive Engineer (B)-11 (MCD) (OP herein) has not supplied information which was sought by the Complainant herein under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vide his letter dated 13.11.2023. It is also stated by the Complainant that as the Complainant has made the advance payment of Rs. 100/- to the OP by way of the Indian Postal Order, he is a consumer as defined in section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. We have heard the arguments of the Complainant, who appeared in person, on the last date of hearing before reserving the order on admissibility.
2. There are two aspects that we have to examine while deciding the admissibility of the complaint. First that whether the Complainant herein is a consumer or not and second that whether there exists any prima facie case against the OP herein or not.
3. On the aspect that whether the Complainant herein falls under the definition of the “consumer” as defined under section 2 (7) of the CPA, the Complainant primarily relied on the order of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Prabhakar V. Aadone vs Superintendent, Civil Court [I (2008) CPJ 427 (NC)]. In the said matter, Hon’ble National Commission, while dealing with the case involving Civil Court Senior Division, Solapur (Maharashtra) has held that the Complainant therein is a consumer when he applied for obtaining urgent certified copy of the order passed by the Competent Court in a matter in which the Complainant therein is a party. Hon’ble National Commission, while considering Order XX, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Certified copy of judgment and decree to be furnished) and other relevant rules applicable for supplying the certified copy of the order to the party concerned, has held that the services rendered by the Superintendent, Civil Court is covered under the definition of service as defined in section 2 (1) (o) of the erstwhile CPA, 1986. Accordingly, upon payment of the fee, the Complainant therein was also held to be a “consumer” within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the erstwhile CPA, 1986.
4. The case in hand is entirely different from the case decided by Hon’ble National Commission. Hon’ble National Commission was examining the supply of certified copy to an interested party to the case under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. In the case in hand, the Complainant has sought certified copy of the documents from the OP under section 76 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872. The said provision is not similar or identical to the Order XX, Rule 20 of the CPC. Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:

“76. Certified copies of public documents.—Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

Explanation.—Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.”

5. The said provision provides that the Public Officer shall, upon demand and payment, supply copy of the public document to the person having right to inspect. In the case before Hon’ble National Commission, the Complainant therein sought certified copy of the order in a case, in which he himself was a party. Accordingly the Complainant therein was an interested party and was having right to inspect. But in the case in hand, there is no document or pleading to suggest that the Complainant herein has any right to inspect such public document. Once there is no right to inspect available to the Complainant, the services rendered by the OP herein under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be brought under the definition of “service” as defined in section 2 (42) of the CPA, 2019. Once the supply of certified copy under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not a service, the Complainant cannot fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined in section 2 (7) of the CPA, 2019.
6. The Complainant has also relied on the order dated 19.04.1991 passed by Hon’ble Odisha State Consumer Commission in Chintamani Mishra vs. Tahasildar, Khandapar [II (1991) CPJ 337 (SY)]. The said order of the Hon’ble Odisha State Commission is also not applicable in the instant case. The Complainant before Hon’ble Odisha State Commission had the “right to inspect” the documents that were sought from the OP therein as the certified copy of the documents were supplied to him, but there was a delay in supplying the same. In the case in hand, as we have held, there is no document or pleading to suggest that the Complainant has any right to inspect such documents that he has sought from the OP herein.
7. At this stage, we would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Adwatia Prasad Biswal vs J Bag [IV (2008) CPJ 184 (NC)]. In this case, Hon’ble National Commission was dealing with the issue of delay in supply of certified copy of documents by an Estate Officer. While distinguishing the case in Adwatia Prasad case (supra) from the earlier judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Prabhakar V Aadone (supra), Hon’ble National Commission has held that once the Complainant has not been able to produce any document on record to suggest that any fee is prescribed by the public authority (Estate Officer in that case), the deposit of fee by any particular person out of his own volition, would not amount to charging of consideration for the service to be rendered or rendered by the public authority. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission in Adwatia Prasad case (supra) held as under:

“5. In our view the decision of this Commission in the above referred case [Prabhakar V Aadone vs Superintendent, Civil Court] cannot be squarely applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case in hand, the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated against the petitioner and an order of eviction was passed against him. Copy of such eviction order was duly dispatched/served on the petitioner and that is why the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a stay of the said order. No doubt, the petitioner had applied for certified copies of the order/documents by suo motu depositing a certain amount as fee for certified copies but nothing has been brought on record to show that the office of the Estate Officer had prescribed any such fees for issuing certified copies. Prescription of particular fees/charges by means of statutory requirements, as in the case of Courts and various other authorities, is to be distinguished from the depositing of fee/charge by a particular person out of his own volition. It would not amount to charging of consideration for the service to be rendered or rendered by a public authority. We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that the Estate Officer or the subordinate staff in that office was rendering service to the petitioner for consideration within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the CP Act, or for that matter, the petitioner could be brought within the ambit of term ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d). In any case the copies applied for by the petitioner were supplied to him and the so-called delay in supply had not occasioned into any loss or damage to the petitioner because, as per the petitioner’s own showing, the appeal filed by him before the District Forum without certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer was duly considered and dealt with by the appellate authority.

6. For the above stated reasons, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum was misconceived and not maintainable, as rightly held by that Forum. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which calls for any interference by this Commission. Revision petition is dismissed as devoid of any merits leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

8. The judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Adwatia Prasad case (supra) squarely applies to the case in hand. There is no document on record to suggest that any fee is prescribed by the OP herein for obtaining the certified copy of the documents/ information sought by the Complainant herein. In such a situation, merely making deposit of fee by the Complainant on his own volition does not bring the Complainant herein within the ambit of the consumer as defined in section 2 (7A) of CPA, 2019. For the same reason, even the OP cannot also be said to be rendering service as defined in section 2 (42) of the CPA, 2019.
9. At this stage, we would also like to record that the Complainant herein has relied on the orders passed by different District Consumer Commissions in support of his claim. The orders passed by different District Commissions are not binding on us. Hence, we are not dealing with the any of the orders of District Commissions.
10. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Complainant herein is neither a consumer as defined in section 2 (7) of the CPA, 2019 nor the OP is rendering service as defined in section 2 (42) of the CPA, 2019 and this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone.
11. Even on merits, we have examined the application filed by the Complainant with the OP. On perusal of the said application, we could not ascertain any “right to inspect” of the documents by the Complainant, which is an essential part of section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further the information sought by the Complainant does not specifically identify the building/s, which is/are subject matter of the information sought by the Complainant. The information sought by the Complainant is vague and not specific. In such a situation, the information so sought cannot be identified and supplied. On this ground also this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. We would also like to record that the Complainant has sought maps, sanction plans and other documents of an unidentified building without proving his locus to seek such documents. The Complainant has not pleaded that he is interested party in any manner. However on a similar application filed under provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the OP has informed the Complainant that the sanctioned building plans and other related information are available on the website of MCD and can be downloaded from there. For other information, the supply of information under the provisions of the RTI Act was denied on the ground, inter alia, of third party information. There is no pleading to show that why the Complainant did not download the documents as available on MCD website and sought only certified copy of the same.
13. At this stage, we would also like to refer to the “Build Your House with a Valid Building Permit: A Guide” issued by Engineering Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which is easily available with the MCD. In the said guide, it is informed that the copy of sensitive documents including building maps and plans can only be supplied to the actual owners of the property on payment of the prescribed fee. Relevant orders and circulars are also part of the said Guide. Once there is a specific procedure is in force, the person concerned has to follow the same laid down procedure and not any other procedure. The Complainant has not followed the procedure as prescribed in the said guide.
14. Further, we are of the opinion that the Complainant’s interest in seeking the information from the OP without proving his locus and right to inspect is very doubtful and dishonest. The abuse of the legal process for illegal gain cannot be permitted. In this context, we would like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1]. In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of genuineness of the litigant while approaching the court of law, has held as under:

“5. … The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.”

15. In the case in hand, we are also of the opinion that the Complainant herein has not approached this Commission with clean hands. He has not cleared his right to inspect and the intention for seeking the information from the OP. Once the Complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands, we are not inclined to entertain this complaint.
16. In view of the above, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the grounds that (i) Complainant herein is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (7) of the CPA, 2019; (ii) the OP herein is not providing any service as defined in section 2 (42) of the CPA, 2019; (iii) the Complainant could not establish his locus to right to inspect the document sought; (iv) the information sought are vague and not specific; (v) complaint is devoid of merit and (vi) Complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed on all these grounds at admission stage itself. No costs.
17. Office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member