Delhi

East Delhi

CC/265/2022

SANJEEV RAKHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.L.O. (MOTOR LICENSE OFFICER) TRANSPORT DEPART. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 265/2022

 

	Sanjeev Rakhra 17/5, Ground Floor, Ram Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051	….Complainant
Versus
	M.L.O. (Motor License Officer) Transport Department GNCT of Delhi Zonal Office, North East Delhi Loni Road, Delhi 110094	……OP

 

Date of Institution: 03.06.2022

Date of First hearing : 11.07.2022

Order Reserved on: 26.07.2022

Order Passed on: 28.07.2022

                  

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member) – on leave

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

                                                         

ORDER

 

1. By this order this Commission shall dispose off the question regarding the maintainability of the complaint filed by the Complainant Shri Sanjeev Rakhra contending that non-supply/rejection of his request  with respect to supply of the certifies copy of working profile (KARYA-KALAP) of MLO under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act by the DTO, North-East Distt, Delhi amounts to deficiency in service.
2. The Complainant in his complaint has contended that on 19.3.2021 he had filed one RTI application before MLO, Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi and sought certain information pertaining to issuance of Registration Certificate (RC). The said RTI application was not replied by the PIO/MLO within stipulated period and thereafter, the Complainant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) under the RTI Act. The said Appeal was disposed off by FAA vide order dated 22.7.2021 with the direction to the PIO/MLO to provide required information within 7 days. Thereafter, PIO provided the information to the Complainant vide letter dated  28.7.2021.
3. Subsequent to the above, the Complainant vide letter dated 29.4.2022 sought certified copies of the documents relating to the KARYAKALAAP (working profile) of MLO/PIO under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, and he also enclosed a postal order of Rs.50/-. This application/letter was not made under RTI Act but was made under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same was replied by the DTO informing that Competent Authority has rejected his application vide letter dated 17.05.2022 and the postal order of Rs.50/- was also returned to him. The complainant alleges that this amounts to deficiency in service and has approached this Consumer Commission.
4. The Commission has heard the arguments of complainant who appeared in person. He has sought some information from Loni Road, Transport Department, Delhi u/s 76 of Indian Evidence Act, and the certified copies w.r.t. working profile (KARYA KALAP) thereof. Before coming to the facts of the complaint, Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, has to be gone through and it reads as under: -

Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

`Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

Explanation:

Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.

 

5. Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act inter alia provides for supply of certain public documents by Public Officer and such documents should be those documents for which the applicant has a right to inspect and on moving appropriate application with legal fee, the Public Officer has been authorized to give certify copies of such demanded documents with his signature and certificate so that such documents may fall within ambit of certified copies.
6. The complainant in this matter in the application dated 29.4.2022 has sought some certified copies from Public Officer/MLO w.r.t. his working profile (KARYAKALAAP) which has been denied vide order dated 17.5.2022. The order reads as under: -

‘…… I am hereby directed to inform you that your request has been rejected by the competent authority for the requisite information sought by you. Further, the IPO of Rs.50/- (in original) vide no. 93G 343560 is being returned to you herewith.’

Sd/-

DTO (Loni Road)

7. Now the complainant has approached this Commission claiming himself to be a consumer of MLO, Transport Department, GNCTD, thereby alleging the deficiency in service by the MLO concerned. As per definition under Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA) consumer means –

Section 2(7)(i)

Buys any goods for a ……………any commercial purpose; or

          Section 2(7)(ii)

‘hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such servicefor any commercial purpose.’            

8. Accordingly, the complainant contends that his case falls under section 2(7)(ii) of CPA 2019  w.r.t. `services’ as it inter-alia reads, ‘consumer means a person who hires or avails any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised to be paid’. The Commission is not in agreement with this contention of the complaint. He can only be termed as a consumer, if he qualifies that he has hired or he has availed or he intends to avail such service of OP for consideration then he may fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’. Apparently, the complainant cannot be said that he is likely to hire the services of MLO or he is likely to avail some services of MLO in person. MLO is a Public Authority and apparently does not fall within the definition of service provider to the complainant. No doubt, the complainant has sought some certified copies of work profile of MLO which a public officer is suppose to have, and then, to give the same to the applicant after taking legal fee which will go to department. In the present case, the applicant cannot be said to have availed or has hired the services of MLO nor the MLO can be held to be a service provider w.r.t. certify copies for providing details of his work profile (KARYA KALAAP). Further, the legal fee which the complainant has tendered cannot be equated with consideration and not only this, once the application was rejected by the MLO that legal fee has also been returned forthwith.
9. The jurisdiction of Consumer Commission is not as an Appellate Authority of public officer working under due process of law. It is also observed in this matter, that complainant earlier had filed similar application under RTI Act and when the information was not provided in that the said complainant preferred first appeal by the applicant and some of the information sought by the complainant were provided and w.r.t. some other informations it was informed to the complainant that they do not fall within the purview of Right to Information Act, under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Instead of approaching the Appellate Authority the complainant has approached this Commission under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, claiming that a Public Officer is duty bound to give certified copies under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act of his working profile. No doubt, under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, a public officer is duty bound to give those documents after certifying them to be true copies as per law for the purpose of using those documents by the complainant before the appropriate authority but not w.r.t. his working profile.
10. Reading together the complaint of complainant u/s 76 of Indian Evidence Act alongwith the provision of section 2(7)(ii) of CPA, this Commission is of the opinion that applicant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ nor can he be said to be potential user of such information w.r.t. demanding certified copies of work profile (KARYA KALAP) of the MLO concerned. Further, even otherwise the work profile of MLO is not a document which may fall within the definition of 74 read with section 76 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and therefore, the present complaint before the Consumer Commission is not maintainable.
11. Further,  in the present complaint what the complainant is asking from the MLO is information w.r.t. his working profile/activities  (KARYA KALAP) and in the considered opinion of this Commission and for the reasons stated supra, by not providing the same by DTO vide letter dated 17.05.2022, the present complaint filed is not maintainable under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
12. Therefore, the complaint filed by the Complainant before this Commission is not maintainable and is rejected.
13. Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the Complainant free of cost as per rules.
14. File be consigned to Record Room.
15. Announced on 28.7.2022

 

1448859.  

 

 

on leave (Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President