Item No. 20

CC No.163/2024

16.05.2024

Appearance –  Complainant Sanjeev Rakha in person. He is heard, on the point of admission of complaint.

1.1 (Introduction) –The present complaint (in Devnagri) was received by way of transfer from DCDRC (East District) Delhi along-with order dated 02.05.2024 by Hon’ble State Commission in TA. No. 29/2024, with directions that complainant will appear before the this DCDRC (Central District) on 15.05.2024. The complainant appeared on 15.05.2024 but the Coram was incomplete as a Member was on leave. Today the Coram is complete.  The complaint is heard.

1.2 The complainant’s case is that on 19.02.2019 he had moved an application (vide diary no. 26) u/s 76 of Indian Evidence Act to seek certified copies of activities of President of DCDRC [East District] in respect of dismissal of, that is rejection of, complaints [that too without admitting the complaints] during period of March 2023 till date of 19.02.2024. The certified copies thereof were sought on urgent basis by furnishing advance part fee by IPO of Rs. 100/- , with an undertaking to pay further amount payable.

            Thence, on 27.02.2024 another application (vide diary no. 31) was filed that certified copies of aforementioned activities was sought on urgent basis but despite lapse of normal time limit of 7 days, the copies were not provided and that is why a notice of 3 days, by way of that application was given, to provide the certified copies. However, on 29.02.2024 the complainant received a letter dated 28.02.2024 from the President of DCDRC East District, while returning the postal order. But the complainant ought to have been provided the copies within 7 days from the initial date of payment of fee for certified copies by the opposite side being public servant. That is why, the complaint was filed by him as a complainant but against the President DCDRC (East District) by mentioning the name of President. The complaint prays for such certified record, compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs, costs and other relief. The complaint was presented and registered as case no. 165/23.04.2024 in the said DCDRC East District, which stand transferred to the present Commission.  It is at the initial stage.

2.  The complainant during the course of submissions refers the documentary record filed in support of complaint as well case law filed.

3.1. The complaint, its contents and record filed are perused, keeping in view the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and the Rules framed there-under. The complainant filed the complaint against the President of DCDRC East District by mentioning his personal name. A simple question is “whether the complaint can be filed in the personal name of President of the Commission?”.

            In order to ascertain answer to this question, the provisions of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations 2020 [r/w section 103(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019] are perused. Its “Rule 2 (d)  reads ‘Registrar’ means the head of the ministerial establishment of the Consumer Commission and exercising such powers and functions as are conferred upon him by the President of the Consumer Commission”.  Further, there is another rule 20(4) of the Regulations 2020, that it is only Registrar, who forwards the certified copies of record to the parties.

            On plain reading of such rules, it is abundantly clear that certified copies are forwarded by the Registrar as well as the relevant functions are performed by the Registrar of the office, either by such nomenclature or otherwise in respect of certified copies. Therefore, for the purposes to array the opposite party in the present complaint, the name of opposite party ought to have been “office of DCDRC East District” and not President/ personal name of President.          However, to array the name proper, it does not need to re-write the entire complaint by the complainant, as there is a provision of Order I Rule 10 CPC and the name of “office of DCDRC East District” can be mentioned in place of President/name of President DCDRC East District. Therefore, by exercising power under u/O 1 rule 10 (2) CPC r/w rule 2 (d) of the Regulations 2020, the proper name  “office of DCDRC East District” is directed to be mentioned and also be recorded so;  the name/personal name of ‘President DCDRC East District stands strike-off.

3.2.  It further needs to re-produce the relevant provisions of law and regulations-

Section sec. 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as -

Sec.76 - Certified copies of public documents. —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 there-for, 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’

The section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, an adjudicative law, is not to be read in isolation but also with the specific rules of certified copies etc prescribed under the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations 2020 r/w section 103(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, since they are in reference the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 being special piece of legislation. Its relevant rules are -

Rule 22 - Inspection of records - Parties or their agents can inspect the records of matter filed by them by filing an application on payment of ten rupees as fee.

Rule 21- Certified copy.-(1) A copy of the final order is to be given to the parties free of cost as required under the Act and the rules made there-under:-

(2) In case a party requires an extra copy, it shall be issued to him duly certified by the Registry on a payment of rupees twenty irrespective of number of pages.

(3) A certified copy of an order shall clearly specify the date when free copy was issued, date of application, date when the copy was made ready and the date when it was so delivered to him.

(4) Any party desiring to get a certified copy of any document on the file of the Consumer Commission, may get the same on payment of certification fee of twenty rupees per copy:

Provided that if any such document of which certified copy is sought, is over and above five pages, an extra amount of one rupee per page shall be charged over and above the fee of rupees twenty.

(5) Certified copy of any miscellaneous order passed by the Consumer Commission shall be supplied on payment of rupees five per copy.

[Underlines emphasis supplied]

Rule 2 (d) "Registrar" means the head of the ministerial establishment of the Consumer Commission and exercising such powers and functions as are conferred upon him by the President of the Consumer Commission.

3.3 Moreover, after taking into account all the circumstances, facts, features and documentary record furnished by the complainant besides provision of law/regulations, the complaint cannot be admitted nor it can be proceeded with for the following reasons -

(i) By conjoint reading of the section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, the certified copies can  be applied by only persons having rights to inspect the record. As per Rule 22 of the Regulation 2020 (Inspection of Record) exclusive right is given to the parties or their duly authorized agent only to inspect the record, which is also subject to application and appropriate fee. Thus, the record of a case can be inspected by a party to the case or its authorized agent but none else.

            Similarly, the Rule 21(4) of the Regulation 2020 [regarding certified copies] also mandates that application for certified copy will be by the party to the case,  that too the application shall be with proper fee payable.  Any person other than party to the case can-not apply for certified copies of the record of the case.

            To say, the right to inspect the record and to obtain certified copies is reserved only for the parties to the case and not for other than the party to the case.

(ii)  The subject application dated 19.02.2023 of the complainant is a simple general application (Annexure-I) seeking certified copies of all cases rejected during March 2023 till 19.2.2024, which were at the stage of admission. This application does not quote any case/ complaint  number, name of parties, date of order or other relevant details, which are required  to be entered into the register maintained.   In fact, each case is a unique case/complaint because of case of its number/year, name of parties and date of order  to be sought as certified copy (being for the purposes of certified copies too).  A party having right to obtain certified copy, has to make application for each individual case with complete detail and not a common single application for bulk certified copies for larger number of cases.

(iii)  The complainant had signed that application dated 19.02.2023 as a general aspirant to secure certified copies. It is never the case of complainant that he is a party in any of the cases for which certified copies was sought, nor the name of any case or date of order or purposes for which copies are required, is mentioned in the application.  It is initial obligation of applicant under rules and regulations to satisfy requirement while seeking certified record.  Moreover, the complainant's other application dated 27.02.2024 [Annexure-3] is similar application, without any such details.

(iv)  The office of DCDRC (East), Delhi has returned the IPO of Rs.100/- with letter dated 28.2.2024 (Annexure-4, in reference of diary no.26  and 31) by specifically mentioning that there was no detail of specific case number, date and name of the case for which record was being sought vis a vis the request was unspecific and vague.  It was conveyed to the applicant/complainant within proper functioning of the Commission. This letter is within the norms, rules and regulations; how it could be construed deficiency of services etc.?. Moreover,  section 96 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  reads - "Protection of action taken in good faith.— No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Presidents and members of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission, the Chief Commissioner, the Commissioner, any officer or employee and other person performing any duty under this Act, for any act which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or under any rule or order made there-under".

(v)     As per rules not only application is to be filed with appropriate fee for record of certified copies but it should also fulfill other requirements, already mentioned. To say, by filing application with advance part fee would not create rights for obtaining certified copies, unless other conditions are also satisfied; the application of complainant/applicant does not fulfill all requisite requirements.  The complainant was not having locus standi to file the application as such for certified copies.

(vi)  On plain looking into the complaint as it is and the sub-clauses (i) to (v) above, it  manifests that complainant  lacks locus standi to make application  for certified copies,  the complaint does not disclose cause of action to be proceeded further and it  is also barred by law/rules/regulations. 

            The complaint is annexed with copies of decided cases, however, the same are pertaining to situations, when the aspirants had fulfilled all requisite requirements for seeking certified copies, which are distinguishable from the situation of this complaint and those cases are not applicable to the present situation.  Accordingly, the complaint is rejected. With this observation, the file is consigned to record room. Dasti copy to of this order be given complainant under acknowledgement.

                                        [Rashmi Bansal]                                          [Inder Jeet Singh]

                                     Member (Female)                                                    President