BEFORE THE DISTR7ICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 54 of 2016
Date of Institution: 4.2.2016
Date of Decision: 9.02.2016
Pritpal Singh Son of S. Harkirtan Singh, 2/305, Jandiala Road, Tarn Taran (9814654324) Email PINKUPARULLIKHARI @ YAHOO.COM
Complainant
Versus
- Sh. S.S. Sahni, Ld. Addl.District & Session Judge,Amritsar
- Sh. Gurbir Singh,Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar
- Hon’ble Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh (Punjab)
- Hon’ble Chief Justice , Supreme Court, New Delhi
- Ministry of Law and Justice, India, New Delhi
Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : In person
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against Sh. S.S. Sahni, Addl.District & Session Judge, Sh. Gurbir Singh, District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Hon’ble Chief Justice Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, Hon’ble Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi and Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt.of India, New Delhi with the allegations that complainant has filed application dated 11.1.2016 for getting copies of the orders/Interim orders of some case titled as Manmeet Kaur Vs. Amardeep Singh, Divorce Petition pending in the court of Sh. S.S. Sahni, Addl.District & Session Judge,Amritsar (hereinafter to be called ADJ, Amritsar). The complainant filed one application dated 14.1.2016, in that court. But the court of Sh.S.S. Sahni,ADJ, Amritsar, before supplying the copy and before hearing the complainant on application dated 14.1.2016 closed that case and decided the same, whereas the copying agency has given the date to take the copies as 21.1.2016. But when the complainant went to take the copies on 21.1.2016, the copying agency has given further date as 30.1.2016. The complainant presumes that these receipts as fake and false ones, because these receipts are not transparent. These receipts should have been audited properly. The complainant lodged complaint dated 22.1.2016 before Sh. Gurbir Singh, District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who also did not take any action against the erring judge Sh.S.S. Sahni,ADJ, Amritsar. So the opposite parties No.2 to 5 were bound to take action to check such irregularities/illegalities because the delay in the procedure of the courts , was due to aforesaid facts. District & Sessions Judge is also liable for not taking any action on this complaint. Sh. S.S. Sahni,ADJ,Amritsar also did not upload the judgement of the aforesaid case upto 25.1.2016, whereas the case was decided on 21.1.2016. All the opposite parties are liable for not taking action under such circumstances in general, so the complainant through this complaint demanded that the court should read over the order first and then upload the same immediately , but they are not doing so. So there is every possibility of the judges changing their mind before uploading the judgement. The complainant further submitted that proper action be taken against the aforesaid erring parties, FIR be got registered against the opposite parties. The law should be amended to bring transparency and the complainant be also consulted, if needed, to change or make amendment in the law/statutes.
2. We have heard the complainant in person and have minutely gone through the averments of the complainant and the documents attached with the complaint by the complainant.
3. The complainant as per his complaint, has applied for copies of certain documents/orders from the file of divorce case titled Manmeet Kaur Vs. Amardeep Singh pending in the court of Sh. S.S. Sahni, ADJ, Amritsar vide application dated 11.1.2016. The complainant has not mentioned as to whether the complainant was a party to the said case because only the party or their counsel can take the copies of documents/orders of that particular case. Moreover, copying agency is to provide certified copies of the orders already passed by the court/documents already filed by the parties. So the copying agency has neither to prepare such documents nor to pass such orders and they have to deliver only the photocopies after giving certificate that it is the true/certified copy, to the applicant. As such the applicant has not got any services from the said copying agency. Moreover, the complainant has not got any services from Sh. S.S.Sahni,ADJ, Amritsar on payment of consideration nor he availed any services of Sh.S.S.Sahni,ADJ,Amritsar on payment. The complainant has lodged allegations that Sh.S.S.Sahni,ADJ,Amritsar did not hear the complainant nor passed proper order and that he has passed the order before the copies were received by the complainant. All these are nothing but administrative/general complaint against Sh.S.S.Sahni, ADJ,Amritsar, which is not within the purview of this Forum. Therefore, the complainant is not the consumer qua the court of Sh.S.S.Sahni,ADJ,Amritsar. Further, the complainant has also not obtained any service from Ld.District & Sessions Judge,Amritsar. He has filed complaint dated 22.1.2016 before the District & Sessions Judge,Amritsar against Sh.S.S.Sahni,ADJ,Amritsar. It is the prerogative of the Ld.District & Sessions Judge,Amritsar to take appropriate action, if any, on that complaint. But the complainant does not become consumer qua the District & Sessions Judge,Amritsar by filing simple complaint dated 22.1.2016 before the Ld.District & Sessions Judge,Amritsar against Sh.S.S. Sahni, ADJ, Amritsar. Further, the complainant never got any services from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court,Chandigarh or from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi or from the Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt.of India, New Delhi. So the complainant is not consumer qua the opposite parties as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. The complainant while arguing has taken the plea that a person , who writes against the officers/officials consumes time in writing those complaints, as such he becomes consumer. This is not proper assessment of the complainant regarding the definition of consumer , as such he was advised to properly undergo the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act before filing the complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, because only the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, can file complaint in this Forum.
5. Resultantly, we hold that the present complaint is not maintainable in this Forum, as such it is ordered that complaint be returned to the complainant, being not maintainable. Copy of the order be furnished to the complainant free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
09.2.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh)
President
/R/ ( Anoop Sharma ) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa )
Member Member
