Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/275

Gurtaj Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gulwant Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :       275

Date of Institution:   21.09.2016

Date of Decision :    06.03.2017

 

Gurtaj Sandhu Advocate aged 34 years, District Courts, Faridkot.

                                                            .......Complainant

Versus

1. Gulwant Kaur, Copy Agency, District Courts, Faridkot through its Incharge.
2. B D Rishi, Superintendent of District Courts, Faridkot, presently, Superintendent at District Courts, Barnala.                                    ........OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh A S Sandhwan, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

         OP-2 Exparte.

                  

 (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 certified copy of order dt 30.07.2016 and to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses.

2                      Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an advocate and he applied for certified copy of order dated 30.07.2016 in case titled Gurdev Singh Vs Baldev Singh vide application no. 2852 dt 30.07.2016 and paid fee to the OPs, but till date, they have not provided the certified copy of order to complainant. It is submitted that thereafter, complainant filed a civil suit titled as Lakhwinder Singh Vs Sukhpal Singh before Civil Judge (Sr Div), Faridkot and Sh Jagwinder Singh, Civil Judge (Jr Division), Faridkot granted an interim injunction on 14.09.2016 at evening, but despite order dated 14.09.2016, defendant Sukhpal Singh did not obey the stay order and client of complainant rushed to complainant and then, complainant applied for certified copy of order dated 14.09.2016 on 15.09.2016 at 10.00 am. On 15.09.2016, at 3.00 pm, complainant approached OP-1 with request to provide the certified copy of order dt 14.09.2016 as it was a urgent matter, but she refused to deliver the copy of said order on the ground that as per instructions of OP-2, no copy of order can be issued before 24 hours. Complainant made several requests to OP-1 to release the same as it was very urgent for his client, but she refused to issue the same and also misbehaved with complainant. On this complainant approached OP-2, but also misbehaved with him and asked him not to interfere in their work and it is not his business to hear against OP-1. OP-2 asked complainant to leave the office. It is further submitted that it is duty of Ops to deliver certified copies of order in time, but till date they have not provided copy of order dated 30.07.2016 and issued the copy of order dt 14.07.2016 on 17.09.2016. There is gross negligence on the part of OPs in not performing their duty properly. All this act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused harassment and humiliation to complainant for which he is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                       The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 26.09.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                          On receipt of notice, OP-1 appeared in Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking legal objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. It is averred that present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as it does not come under the definition of consumer against the post of OP-1. It is further averred that OP-1 is a government employee and does her duty in official capacity and therefore, complaint is not maintainable against her. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that if  copy of any order is applied by any applicant including the present complainant, it is supplied to them as per rules. It is asserted answering OP neither refused to deliver the certified copy, nor she misbehaved with complainant. All the certified copies or orders are supplied to applicants as per law. Present complaint is concocted one and entire story is made up by complainant being an afterthought and is a creation of legal brain and it needs strict proof. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

5                                          Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-2 through registered cover, but same did not receive back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. It is declared that OP-2 has sufficient notice of complaint filed against him, but he did not appear in the Forum on date fixed either in person or through counsel to contest the complaint filed against him. Statutory period expired and after waiting for long time till 4.00 pm, Op-2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.12.2016.

6                                   Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed the same on behalf of complainant.

7                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Smt Gulwant Kaur as Ex OP-1/1 and document Ex OP-1/2 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1.

8                          Ld Counsel for complainant has argued that complainant is an advocate and he applied for certified copy of order dated 30.07.2016 in case titled as Gurdev Singh Vs Baldev Singh vide application dt 30.07.2016 and paid fee to the OPs, but till date, they have not provided the certified copy of order. It is submitted that thereafter, complainant filed a civil suit titled as Lakhwinder Singh Vs Sukhpal Singh before Civil Judge (Sr Div), Faridkot and Sh Jagwinder Singh, Civil Judge (Jr Division), Faridkot granted an interim injunction on 14.09.2016 at evening, but despite order dated 14.09.2016, defendant Sukhpal Singh did not obey the stay order and client of complainant rushed to complainant, who then, applied for certified copy of order dated 14.09.2016 on 15.09.2016 at 10.00 am. On 15.09.2016, at 3.00 pm, complainant approached OP-1 with request to provide the certified copy of order dt 14.09.2016 as it was an urgent matter, but she refused to deliver the copy of said order on the ground that as per instructions of OP-2, no copy of order can be issued before 24 hours. Complainant made several requests to OP-1 to release the same as it was very urgent for his client, but she refused to issue the same and also misbehaved with him. On this complainant approached OP-2, but he also misbehaved with him and asked him not to interfere in their work and it is not his business to hear against OP-1. OP-2 asked complainant to leave the office. It is further submitted that it is duty of Ops to deliver certified copies of order in time, but till date they have not provided copy of order dated 30.07.2016 and issued the copy of order dt 14.07.2016 on 17.09.2016. There is gross negligence on the part of OPs  and it amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint and has stressed to consider the documents Ex C-1 to 6.

9                         Ld Counsel for OP-1 argued that all the allegations levelled by complainant on OPs are wrong and incorrect and averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. It is averred that OP-1 is a government employee and does her duty in official capacity and therefore, complaint is not maintainable against her. It is further averred that if copy of any order is applied by any applicant including the present complainant, it is supplied to them as per rules. It is asserted that answering OP neither refused to deliver the certified copy, nor she misbehaved with complainant. All the certified copies of orders are supplied to applicants as per law. Present complaint is concocted one and entire story is made up by complainant being an afterthought and is a creation of legal brain and it needs strict proof. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and they have prayed for dismissal of present complaint.

10                         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

11                             The case of the complainant is that complainant applied for certified copy of the order dt 30.07.2016 through his application dt 30.07.2016, but till date, OPs did not release the same. On 15.09.2016, complainant further applied for certified copy of order dt 14.09.2016, which was very urgent for his client, but instead of releasing the same, OP-1 misbehaved with complainant and refused to issue the same on the ground that as per instructions of OP-2, she cannot deliver the copy of any order before 24 hours. Grieved by her attitude, complainant approached OP-2 and prayed for releasing the copy of order as it was very urgent for them, but OP-2 also did not pay any heed to listen to his request and asked him to leave his office. All this caused great harassment and humiliation to complainant, who is an advocate. He has prayed for accepting the complaint. In reply, OP-1 asserted that she is a government employee and present complaint is not maintainable against her as she does her work in official capacity and all certified copies of orders passed by Hon’ble Courts are issued as per law and there no deficiency in service or negligence in duty on her part. OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant and asserted that she never misbehaved with complainant and she did everything as per rules.

12                         Before going into the merits of the case, the first question to be decided is whether complainant falls under the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act or not. On this point, the complainant placed on record a reliance on the citation 2008(2)CPJ 161 titled as Ravindra Mohan Namdev Vs Naib Tehsildar and others, wherein our National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 14 (1) (d) Claim for compensation on account of harassment – Certified copies of case records applied – Failure on part of Naib Tehsildar to produce copies – District Forum issued directions to supply copy, and awarded compensation – Appeal against – Whereby order upheld and compensation disallowed – Revision petition against – Directions given to Collector to supply copies, if not yet been supplied – Petitioner suffered prolonged harassment and considerable costs in pursuing request for getting copies of documents – Petitioner entitled to compensation for harassment.

He further put reliance on citation I (2008) CPJ 427 (NC) titled as Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone Vs Superintendent, Civil Court, wherein our National Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(o) – Statutory Services – Certified copy of judgment – Issuance delayed – Deficiency in service alleged – Complaint allowed by Forum – Order set aside in appeal – State Commission held, appellant being Government agency, exercising sovereign function – Deficiency in service, not amenable to jurisdiction of Consumer Fora – Hence revision – Grant of certified copies of Court’s orders, not sovereign function but administrative function – Failure/Omission amenable to judicial review – Preparation and delivery of certified copy in consideration of copying charges/fee, service under Consumer Protection Act – Complainant deposited fee for obtaining such copy, consumer – Order of State Commission set aside – Order of District Forum restored.

13                               In the light of these decisions of our Hon’ble National Commission, the complainant falls under the definition of consumer. Now, on merits, it is admitted case of the parties that on 15.09.2016, complainant applied for issuance of certified copy of order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr Division), Faridkot in civil suit titled as Lakhwinder Singh Vs Sukhpal Singh and deposited requisite fee for it alongwith urgent fees. It is further admitted that certified copy of the order was issued to complainant on 17.09.2016. Complainant argued that he requested OP-1 to issue the copy of order immediately as it was urgently required to his client, but she refused to deliver the copy and misbehaved with him. He further requested OP-2 and prayed for  issuance of copy of order but he did not pay any heed to and also misbehaved with him. Ld Counsel for OP-1 argued that OP-1 neither refused to deliver the certified copy nor misbehaved with complainant at any time. She received the application for issuance of certified copy of order dated 14.09.2016 on 15.09.2016 and she prepared the copy immediately, but the same was issued to complainant on 17.09.2016 as she is only a Copyist  and only Superintendent of District Courts/OP-2 is authorised to attest and certify the copies of orders as per rules and only after the signatures of OP-2, any certified copy can be delivered to a party. In the present case, the OP-1 prepared the copy of order on time when she received an application, but it is only OP-2 who signed the copy on 16.09.2016 and after his signatures, the copy of order was delivered to complainant on 17.09.2016, then complainant received the same from OP-2 after his signatures. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 as she did her job perfectly.

14                        From the above discussion, it is clear that complainant applied for the certified copy of the order on 15.09.2016 with urgent fees and requested OPs to supply the same as it was urgently required to them and on receipt of application, OP-1 prepared the copy on time but OP-2, who is the Superintendent of District Courts and authorised to attest and certified the copies of orders did not sign and certify the copy on time. So, the copy of order could not delivered to complainant on time and the delivery of the order delayed unnecessarily. So, these acts of OP-2 amount to deficiency in service on his part. Hence, present complaint is hereby allowed against OP-2. OP-2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony and inconvenience suffered by him. OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-to complainant as litigation expenses. Complaint against OP-1 stands dismissed.  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 the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of this order be supplied complainant as well as Opposite parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 6.03.2017       

Member                President                  (P Singla)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)