Cosumer Forum consumer case(CC) CC/11/15 Of 2011 Sham lal Sethi Complainant Versus Incharge Suvidha Centre Respondent For Complainant In person For Respondent Present complaint has been filed by the complainant Sham Lal against the Incharge Suvidha Centre pleading that he time and again applied for copies of certain documents through Suvidha Centre and paid the facilitation fees as per demand of the opposite parties. But despite the payment of facilitation fees and necessary statutory fee for obtaining certified copies, the opposite parties have failed to provide him the copies of the documents applied by the complainant. 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared and filed written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that as and when an application was made by the complainant for getting certified copies of certain documents through opposite party No.1, the same was forwarded to the respective departments/branches and the complainant was given tentative delivery dates. However, since the certified copies were not received from the respective branch/department, the said tentative dates were extended. Ultimately the documents were received in the office of opposite party No.1 on 18.8.2010, but the complainant never turned up to receive the same. It has been pleaded that before filing of the complaint, complainant has received copies of documents on 26.11.2010. 3. Heard. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is delay in supplying the certified copies by the opposite parties to the complainant. On the other hand, Sh Sandeep Singh Katoch representative for the opposite parties submitted that firstly documents claimed by the complainant were old one and the record was not traceable. The same were first sent to some branch and the report was received that the same was not concerned with the said branch. The said application was again forwarded to the concerned branch and after receipt of the documents the same were supplied to the complainant. At this, the counsel for the complainant submitted that each time when a report is received that the documents are not concerned with the branch to which the application was sent, then it was the duty of the opposite parties to send the application to the concerned branch without calling upon the complainant and not to force the complainant to make rounds of the office of opposite party No.1. It eventually created the harassment to the applicant inspite of payment of facilitation fees to the opposite party No.1. The representative of the opposite party No.1 assured this Forum that opposite party No.1 would take necessary steps to minimize the harassment to the applicants in this respect and the opposite party No.1 will look into the matter to make certain arrangements to minimize the harassment to the applicants and to assure prompt and early delivery of the documents to the applicants. Since the documents have already been supplied to the complainant and even the representative of the opposite party No.1 has assured that the opposite party No.1 will improve its functioning in minimizing the harassment of the applicants, so no further relief is required to be granted to the complainant and the complaint is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to the record room. Announced (Sanjay Garg) 23.06.2011 President (Tarlok Singh) Member