This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Kolkata Municipal Corporation against the order dated 10.01.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.A/1375/2015.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant wanted his son’s birth certificate from opposite party/petitioner and applied for the same on 16.10.2014.  The opposite party put the remarks  “registered book damaged from 14.7.1979 to 4.11.1979”.  However, after intervention of higher officer of the petitioner’s office the certificate was issued on 20.10.2014 i.e. just after 3 days.     

3.      Aggrieved by the manner of treatment of his application by the opposite party, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, (in short ‘the District Forum’) being consumer complaint No.285 of 2015.  The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that the Birth Certificate was issued within three days to the complainant and therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.  Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 02.12.2015.

4.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission being appeal No.A/1375/2015.  The State Commission allowed the appeal of the complainant vide its order dated 10.1.2018 and directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest w.e.f. 29.6.2015 till actual realisation.

5.      Hence the present revision petition.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as the Birth Certificate was issued within three days of the application.  Learned counsel agreed that the record belonged to the year 1979 and the record was in damaged condition from 14.7.1979 to 04.11.1979.  However, the officer of the opposite party made special efforts and the Birth Certificate was issued on 20.10.2014 whereas the application was filed on 16.10.2014. Legally the complainant was required to have taken Birth Certificate at the time of the birth itself or within a reasonable period, however, the application was filed after about 35 years and therefore, sometime was taken in searching of the record.  The lower staff has to put the position of the record and the same was put by the concerned official that the record from 14.7.1979 to 04.11.1979 was in a damaged condition. When the complainant brought the matter to the higher officer of the opposite party, special efforts were made to issue the certificate and the certificate was issued within three days.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/opposite party and District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint, however, the State Commission has allowed the complaint and has ordered a compensation of Rs.50,000/- without any deficiency having been proved on the part of the petitioner/opposite party.  The State Commission has based its decision on the following observation:-

“If the Respondent is incapable of keeping even 35 year old record in its proper shape, no doubt, that is a sad commentary on its Management .  Further, on account of its carelessness, a consumer cannot be made to suffer.  In this case, as I find, the career prospect of the son of the Appellant was in the brink of ruin, thanks to the insensitive/apathetic attitude of the concerned official, who visibly did not think twice to make false statement in black & white.  This is how officials of the Respondent treat common man.  The fact that the Birth Certificate was ultimately issued after three days does not diminish the fact that the Appellant was put under terrific mental pressure/strain/anxiety.  In this what a consumer deserves from the Corporation.” 

7.      Learned counsel argued that Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 allows the forum to order compensation on the basis of the loss or injury suffered by the complainant due to negligence of the opposite party.   In the present case, the complainant has suffered no loss or injury as there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party because the Birth Certificate was issued just after three days.  The State Commission has based its award of compensation on the status of record keeping by the opposite party.  It was argued that this cannot be a basis for ordering compensation to the complainant, who had not suffered any loss and the opposite party has performed its duty as per the rules. 

8.      On the other hand, respondent/complainant in person stated that the Birth Certificate of his son was urgently required to be submitted for his career prospect. The complainant suffered mental agony and harassment when his application was returned with remarks that the record for that period was damaged, though later on the Birth Certificate was issued.  Thus, the callous attitude of the officials of the opposite party has caused tremendous mental agony and harassment atleast for 3 days to the complainant.  The State Commission has realised the state of affairs prevailing in the office of the opposite party, therefore, has granted compensation to the complainant based on deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/opposite party. 

9.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides and have examined the record.  Both parties agree that the Birth Certificate has been issued just after 3 days and in fact there is no delay in issuing the Birth Certificate.  Definitely it was an old record and it must have taken sometime to search for the same.  It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner/opposite party has taken more fees than required.  Thus, if the required fees has been paid and the service has been delivered timely by the opposite party, then the question of deficiency in service does not arise.  There is no allegation in respect of the quality of the service because the Birth Certificate has been issued in the required/usual format.  The complainant has not alleged any lacuna in the Birth Certificate issued by the opposite party.  Even if some adverse remarks are made on the application of the complainant, but ultimately, the Birth Certificate has been issued, therefore, I do not find any reason for the complainant to have filed the complaint. 

10.    Based on the above discussion, I find that the State Commission has erred in granting compensation to the complainant as there was no financial loss suffered by the complainant and the required service was provided within a period of 4 days. Complainant has not raised any issue that the service has been provided after the prescribed period if any. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 10.1.2018 of the State Commission is set aside.  The order of the District Forum is upheld except for penal cost of Rs.2,500/- and the complaint stands dismissed.