Order-14.

Date-02/12/2015.

In this complaint Complainant Motilal Jhalani by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant’s son Ajay Kumar Jhalani resides at Dubai and his office asked him for his Birth Certificate as per their service requirement and accordingly complainant visited the office of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) for the same and as per complaint dated 11.11.2014 to the op, complainant sent by e-mail to his son one scan copy of the Birth Certificate as received from op and his sonacknowledged the same by E-mail on 20.10.2014.As the scan copy was not accepted by the office of his son, so his son vide e-mail dated 10.11.2014 asked to send the originals by courier service and the complainant sent the original by courier service to his son which was acknowledged by his son vide his E-mail dated 19.11.2014.

The Birth Certificate records department of Kolkata Municipal Corporation put their remarks on the application form for Birth Certificate of his son ’14.07.1979 to 04.11.1979 Register Book Damaged’ without going through the records and the said note was signed by the Senior most officer of the Record Room and it was reported by the authority of KMC as the book is damaged, the Birth Certificate cannot be issued as this stage and practically for the damage complainant suffered much.But there were several others who had suffered from the said remarks and were never issued Birth Certificate.

After approaching and visiting all the respect junior staff to senior officers of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and their remarks .As the book is damaged, the Birth Certificate cannot be issued. and Birth Certificate will never be issued and became nervous.As service of his son was involved and it was a matter of his life and death.Lastly the Birth Certificate was issued with the kind help of PradipBabu and TapanBabu.Under such circumstances complainant said in the complaint that complainant brought deficiency of service against the KMC and mental agony and for which this present complaint is filed.

On the other hand op by filing written statement has submitted that the entire allegation is false and there was no deficiency and negligence on the part of the op and it is specifically mentioned that complainant never enquired his son Ajay Kumar Jhalani since birth i.e. from the year 1979.Now when in October 2014 complainant came to the office of the op, no name of new born baby child was registered and it was required to submit necessary documents for inclusion of name of new born baby child and it took one day to process the same.So, ultimately a copy of birth certificate of Ajay Kumar Jhalani was delivered to the complainant within three working days.So, the entire allegation is false and fabricated for which the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reason

On careful consideration of the complaint and written version and also considering the entire materials, it is found that the case is filed by the complainant against the KMC.But as per Provision of KMC before filing any case, a notice u/s 407 of KMC is mandatory but that has not been made, that is another chapter. But that is another factor which is not decided by this Forum at all.

But fact remains that complainant applied for his son’s Birth CertificateCoupon No. 53 dated 16.10.2014 which is evident from the record from the computer data and there was no name of his son and computer data showed that birth day of complainant’s son was 01.09.1979.Staff of the record of the op department were unable to provide manual data on the same date i.e. on 16.10.2014 as the said record was found damage and on 17.10.2014 that damaged registered was searched out.

But considering the gravity of the application Sub-Register of KMC inserted the child’s name and also corrected parents names under explanation and verification of Original discharge certificate application extended by the record department and birth certificate was issued on 20.10.2014.

Considering all those fact, it is found that this fact has not beenventilated in the complaint and complainant in fact got good service from the KMC and in such a situation the birth certificate was granted and fact remains that in the birth register child’s name was not there.Peculiar factor is that in the birth certificate parent’s name was also incorrect and that was also corrected after lapse of 25 years.

So, fact remains that complainant has lodged this complaint falsely, purposefully and falsely claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, it indicates that only for the purpose of collecting huge compensation this false case is filed.

Truth is that complainant has not explained the entire matter at the time of registering the birth certificate of his son in the year 1979, he did not note the name of his son and at the same time parents’ name were wrongly supplied and when complainant applied for supply of copy of birth certificate all the anomalies were detected and that was corrected by the KMC Authority and they issued it on 20.10.2014 against application dated 16.10.2014.

Then it is clear that within 3 days the KMC issued the certificate after proper correction of the old register inserting the name of the child correcting the names of the parents and for that purpose they took only three days that is very reasonable period and service was prompt.But even then complainant has filed this case against op only for harassing the op and anyhow to collect huge compensation.But the entire complaint is found false, fabricated, vexatiousbut then as consumer this complaint is filed.At the same time the act of complainant as consumer is no doubt dishonest act for which this complaint fails by imposing such penal cost.

Hence, it is

Ordered,

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op with penal cost of Rs.2,500/- and complainant shall have to deposit the said penal cost to this Forum within one month from the date of this order, failing which 9 percent interest p.a. over the same shall be assessed till full payment and it must be deposited to this Forum immediately within the specified period, in default penal action shall be started against him u/s 25 read with 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.