BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 309 of 2016

Date of Institution: 06.07.2016

Date of Decision: 18.07.2016

Davinder Singh JE Retired son of S.Gurmej Singh Manawalia, resident of L-6/392 MCA, Gali No.3, New Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Amritsar-99144-11023. 

Complainant

Versus

Local Registrar, Birth and Death Department, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: In person.

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Davinder Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant had applied for Birth Certificate with Suvidha Centre vide application No. 12029 dated 13.6.2011 with regard to Amritpal Singh (Date of Birth 26.5.1997), resident of Shree Dukhniwaran, Jail Road, Opposite Red Cross Bhawan, Amritsar. Suvidha Centre had fixed the date for issuance of birth certificate as 11.7.2011 on receipt of Rs.125/- for supplying 10 copies. The complainant had deposited the requisite  fee alongwith requisite affidavit, but till 12.6.2011 no reply or copies were supplied to the complainant. On 13.6.2011, the objection was raised  that date of birth  is in torn and bad condition and the complainant  was had to wait for 6 months uptil 27.12.2011 while the birth certificate issued by Suvidha Centre was incomplete. Another application under RTI was sent bearing Post No.EP 108225245 dated 27.12.2011 after payment of Rs.12/- through Post Office, Kot Atma Ram, Amritsar enquiring as to why incomplete certificate has been issued after the passage of 6 months. But however,  the application dated 13.6.2011 was rejected while the entire birth record has been computerized. Thereafter, the complainant also sent request to Chief Medical Officer, Amritsar for further action in the matter on 17.7.2012. District Registrar, Birth and Death, Amritsar issued letter No. 12/5521 dated 3.7.2012 in that regard. Thereafter, the Suvidha Centre issued receipt No. 69774 dated 17.9.2012 by making false and frivolous receipt and rejected the application filed by the complainant. As per new receipt and in order to get rid of RTI application, certificate No. 499252, 117462 dated 27.8.2012 were issued. The Opposite Party has failed to care for Right to Information Act. No action was taken on the request letter bearing No.DS-77/8.9.2012, No.614 dated 2.4.2016 and No.642 dated 17.5.2016. It is therefore, requested that Suvidha Centre may be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for economic, mental tension and inconvenience caused to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.       We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through the record on file.

3.       A bare perusal of the complaint shows that it is vague and indefinite. The complaint pertains to birth certificate  regarding Amritpal Singh. Neither his father’s name nor address of Amritpal Singh has been mentioned in the complaint. So much so, it is also not stated as to whether said Amritpal Singh was major or minor. Even his relationship with the complainant also does not find mention. Perusal of the copy of birth certificate of Amritpal Singh shows that he was born on 26.5.1997, as such said Amritpal Singh was major at the time of filing of the present complaint. Amritpal Singh was himself competent to file the instant complaint. So much so, Amritpal Singh could execute special power of attorney or general power of attorney authorizing the present complainant  to maintain the complaint on his behalf. But however, for the reasons best known to the complainant, no such procedure was adopted. In such a situation,  the complainant was not duly authorized person to file the present complaint on behalf of Amritpal Singh. The complaint is also hit by limitation. The birth certificate was issued on 27.8.2012 whereas the present complaint has been filed only on 6.7.2016. The complaint was competent within a  period of 2 years from the date of alleged deficient supply of birth certificate in dispute on 27.8.2012. No application for condonation of delay has been filed alongwith the complaint. Therefore, the complaint as framed is not maintainable.  No further action is required to be taken in this complaint. As such, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed in limine.   File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 18.07.2016.                                                      

hrg