DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C.C. No. : 45 of 2018
Date of Institution: 15.03.2018
Date of Decision : 8.07.2019
Jasveer Singh aged about 44 years s/o Sukhdev Singh, r/o Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
- Incharge Sewa Kendra, Mini Secretariat, Faridkot.
- Incharge, Copy Agency, Deputy Commissioner Office, Mini Secretariat, Faridkot.
- Superintendent, Copy Agency, Mini Secretariat, Faridkot.
....Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Gagandeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1,
Sh Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-2 & 3.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for deficiency in service by not providing certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017 in time and to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him besides litigation expense.
cc no. 45 of 2018
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that vide application dated 6.12.2017, complainant applied for certified copy of the order dated 1.12.2017 and some documents in case titled as Tehal Singh Vs Balwant Singh and paid Rs.230/-to OP-1 and Rs.170/-in the shape of stamps to OP-2 and OP-3. As per rules, copy of order was required to be provided within 7 days from the date of application, but OPs gave deliver date for releasing the copy for 18.12.2017. On 18.12.2017, complainant approached Ops and requested them to deliver the copy of order dated 1.12.2017, but they put off the delivery date for 18.01.2018 and when on 18.01.2018, complainant approached Ops and requested them to provide certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017, they again put off the complainant on one pretext or the other and extended the delivery date to 29.01.2018, but again on 29.01.2018, Ops did not provide him copy of order sought and ultimately delivered him certified copy of order on 14.02.2018 after a long delay, though as per rules, certified copy was required to be supplied by Ops within 7 days of date of receipt of application. Ops have caused huge harassment and mental agony to him by causing delay in releasing said copy and also charged Rs.230/-extra from complainant because complainant had already paid the prescribed fee of Rs.170/-in the form of stamps, but Ops charged this amount of Rs.230/-in excess and illegally from him. all this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to him. he has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith 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 21.03.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
cc no. 45 of 2018
4 OP-1 filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that answering OP acts only like a mediator to take the documents, forward the same to concerned department and after receiving the same from concerned department, supplies the same to the applicant. There is no fault on their part and complainant has falsely dragged them in present litigation. He has no locus standi to file the complaint and even complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant applied for obtaining certified copy on 6.12.2017 and date of delivery was extended to 29.01.2018, but he has filed this complaint on 14.03.2018 and thus, it is liable to be dismissed. No cause of action arises against them, but it is admitted by Op-1 that complainant applied for certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017. It is also admitted that answering OP charged Rs.230/-from complainant as per rates fixed by State Government and they have no concern with service stamps worth Rs.170/-annexed by complainant. There are no rules that copy is required to be supplied within seven days as tentative date fixed for supplying copy is generated by system and nothing in their control. Moreover, copy was not received by them from concerned department on date fixed and therefore, date for supplying copy was extended by them but complainant did not approach them on date fixed i.e 18.12.2017, rather he approached them on 16.01.2018 and on that he was told that copy of order has not been received and date of delivery was extended. It is averred that when complainant approached them on 14.02.2018, copy of was received by them from concerned department and same was handed over to complainant. Being a mediator, they have expressed their inability and it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and complainant has filed the
cc no. 45 of 2018
present complaint only to cause harassment to them. All the other allegations are also refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5 OP-2 and 3 filed reply wherein denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that present complaint is filed on mere conjectures and surmises all the allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous and complaint is vexatious. It is averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as they do not provide any services in contravention of notification dated 2.03.2015 passed by Government of Punjab. He has no locus standi to file the present complaint and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. He has made a false story regarding issuance of certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017. It is admitted that on 6.12.2017, complainant applied for certified copy of said order and OP-2 and 3 delivered the same to complainant without any delay. All the other allegations are and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.
6 Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.
7 To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Nikhil Gupta Ex OP-1/1 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Narinder Kumar Ex OP-2,3/1 and also closed the same.
cc no. 45 of 2018
8 From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that on 6.12.2017, he applied for certified copy of the order dated 1.12.2017 and some documents in case titled as Tehal Singh Vs Balwant Singh and paid Rs.230/-to OP-1 and Rs.170/-in the shape of stamps to OP-2 and OP-3. As per rules, copy of order was required to be provided within 7 days, but OPs gave delivery date for releasing the copy for 18.12.2017 and kept extending the delivery dates from 18.12.2017 to 18.01.2018, and when on 18.01.2018, complainant approached Ops to procure said certified copy of order, they again put off the complainant on one pretext or the other and again extended the delivery date to 29.01.2018, but 29.01.2018, Ops did not provide him said order and ultimately delivered him certified copy of order on 14.02.2018 after a long delay, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, OP-1 admitted that complainant applied for certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017 and it is also admitted that they charged Rs.230/-from complainant as per rates fixed by State Government and they have no concern with service stamps worth Rs.170/-annexed by complainant. OP-1 took plea that said copy was not received by them from concerned department on date fixed and therefore, date for supplying copy was extended by them but complainant did not approach them on date fixed i.e 18.12.2017, rather he approached them on 16.01.2018 and on that he was told that copy of order has not been received and date of delivery was extended. When they received said order from concerned department, it handed over the same to complainant. Being a mediator, they have expressed their inability and it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part. As per OP-2 and 3 all the allegations of complainant are wrong and
cc no. 45 of 2018
incorrect and asserted that they do not provide any services in contravention of notification dated 2.03.2015 passed by Government of Punjab. He has made a false story regarding issuance of certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017 though admitted that on 6.12.2017, complainant applied for certified copy of said order and OP-2 and 3 delivered the same to complainant without any delay. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.
9 Ld Counsel for complainant has brought our attention to document Ex C-2 that is copy of receipt issued by OP-1 to complainant regarding application submitted by him for obtaining certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017. Date of application is mentioned over it as 6.12.2017 and date on which copy sought was required to be supplied to complainant is mentioned as 18.12.2017. This document further bears date 18.01.2018 with comments that information regarding application no.5072502 of complainant has not received from concerned branch i.e OP-2 and OP-3 and therefore, delivery date was extended to 18.01.2018. on right side of this document, again remarks are written in hand that requisite order has not been received from concerned branch and therefore, delivery date was extended to 29.01.2018. Ex C-3 to Ex C-7 are copies of copy of order dated 1.12.2017 and other documents sought by complainant that clearly depict the date of preparation and date of delivery mentioned over these as 12.02.2018.
10 We have thoroughly gone through the file and have carefully perused the documents produced on record by parties. It is observed that grievance of complainant is that despite his repeated requests, OPs did not provide certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017 to him within prescribed period of seven
cc no. 45 of 2018
days and kept postponing the delivery date and caused huge delay in furnishing the copy of order sought, which caused harassment and mental agony to him. It is observed that it has become tendency of government officials to create hindrance and cause unnecessary delay in rendering services to public without any reason. Complainant applied for order dated 1.12.2017 on 6.12.2017, but he received the copy of said order on 14.02.2018 after long delay of more than two months. Document Ex C-2 is a cogent evidence to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and OP-3 as it bears remarks that documents sought by complainant have not been received by OP-1. From perusal of Ex C-3 to Ex C-7, it is clear that order sought was delivered to complainant on 12.02.2018. Documents placed on record by complainant are self explanatory and are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt. Action of OP-2 and 3 in causing unnecessary delay in furnishing certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017 alongwith relevant documents, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and OP-3. It is transpired that OP-1 has no role in causing delay in handing over requisite documents to complainant as on Ex C-2, it has been specifically remarked by OP-1 that documents sought have not been received by them from concerned branch.
11 From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and OP-3 in causing delay in releasing certified copy of order dated 1.12.2017 to complainant. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2 and 3 and they are directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2000/- for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which
cc no. 45 of 2018
complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-1 stands dismissed as it has no role in redressing the grievance of complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 8.07.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
