Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/24/1857

Ajay Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Tpt. office - Opp.Party(s)

complainant in person

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 1857 dated 12.09.2024.                       

                             Date of decision: 01.10.2024. 

 

Ajay Sharma s/o Mangat Ram Sharma H.No.48 New Shakti Vihar, Near Balaji Mandir, Fanta Colony, Jassian Road, Ludhiana, Punjab. M:9815661652.

                                                                                       ..…Complainant                                                            Versus

Public Officer(Designation), Regional Transport Office, Mini-Secretariat, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act,2019(as amended upto date).

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint claiming himself to be a consumer stating therein that the complainant had submitted an application before OP to supply certified copy of Public documents under Section 75 to 77 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on 24.07.2024 along with IPO of Rs.120/- for the purpose of postal expenditure and other documents fees. The complainant made a complaint to OP office on 18.08.2023 and the complainant demanded the documents regarding the complaint initiated/action taken report along with related documents in office of OP. It is claimed that the said documents are public documents, for which, the complainant is legally eligible and entitled to obtain the same from the OP and there is no such provision that can be bar or restrict the complainant to obtain such public documents. The complainant visited the office of OP and trying to submit the fees for the public documents but Public Officer denied to accept the fees in form of cash and force the complainant to pay the fees for the public documents in the form of Indian Postal Order which the complainant paid on 24.07.2024. It is submitted that despite repeated visits made by the complainant for a week, but OP failed to provide the public documents after taking the fees in the form of IPO. Complainant also served a legal notice upon the OP on 13.08.2024 but OP neither replied to the said notice nor provided documents to the complainant. According to the complainant, OP has failed to provide the services for which the OP charged the fees from the complainant. It has resulted in mental harassment, stress along with irreparable loss to the complainant. OP has shown deficiency in service by failing to provide the information after charging the requisite fee. Hence by filing the present complaint, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with miscellaneous expenses of Rs.10,000/- as well as Rs.10,000/- as legal fees to him.

2.                We have heard the complainant in person on the point of admissibility of the complaint and have gone through the record.

3.                Complainant who has appeared in person and has specifically contended that he is entitled to the documents as sought from the OP in view of Sections 75 to 77 of The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on payment of legal fee but the OP has delayed the matter for long and deliberately did not provide the same. So, the complainant is entitled to seek compensation and other relief for non-supply of the documents as prayed for in the complaint.

4.               Section 75 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is relates to provide the certified copies of public documents which is reproduced as under:-

 “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 authorised by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

                   Further, Section 76 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is also relates to provide the certified copies of public documents which is reproduced as under:-

“Certified copies of public documents can be used as proof of the contents of those documents”

                   Further, Section 77 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is also relates to provide the certified copies of public documents which is reproduced as under:-

“(a) Acts, orders or notifications of the Central Government in any of its Ministries and Departments or of any State Government or any Department of any State Government or Union territory Administration— (i) by the records of the Departments, certified by the head of those Departments respectively; or (ii) by any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government;

(b) the proceedings of Parliament or a State Legislature, by the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed by order of the Government concerned;

(c) proclamations, orders or Regulations issued by the President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator or Lieutenant Governor of a Union territory, by copies or extracts contained in the Official Gazette;

(d) the Acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the Legislature of a foreign country, by journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such, or by a copy certified under the seal of the country or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof in any Central Act;

(e) the proceedings of a municipal or local body in a State, by a copy of such proceedings, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book purporting to be published by the authority of such body;

(f) public documents of any other class in a foreign country, by the original or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a certificate under the seal of a Notary Public, or of an Indian Consul or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country.”

5.                However, conjoint reading of aforesaid sections make it crystal clear that unless a person has a “right to inspect” the document he has no locus standi to demand a copy from a public officer on payment of legal fees. “Right to inspect” must originate from some law or statue but the complainant could not refer any of the relevant law which bestows him the “right to inspect” the public documents.

6.                In case titled as Satpal Sainichela Bab Gama Shah versus H.P.Seb-2018(SC) Online NCDRC 1830, whereby the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dismissed a revision petition, wherein the appellant filed a complaint, aggrieved by the failure of the respondent to give him the requested information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, by alleging that due to information not being provided to him, he suffered mental tension and harassment. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dismissed the revision petition, without any costs, by observing that ‘not supplying information under the RTI Act or supplying the information with delay cannot give rise to a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as none of the sub-provisions of Section 2(1)(c) are attached.

7.                Further, in the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Ireo Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. versus Abhishek Khanna-(2021)3 SCC-241, it has been held that when two concurrent remedies are available to an aggrieved consumer, one under the CP Act and the second under the other laws, then that aggrieved consumer has an independent option to elect which one out of the two or more remedies, he wishes to exercise. And if he elects one over the other, he loses the right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action.

8.                Applying the ratio of the afore-cited laws, we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant has sought the information from Public Officer, (Designation) Regional Transport Office, Mini Secretariat, Ludhiana under RTI Act which was not supplied to him. As the complainant has already invoked the provisions of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 under the section 75 to 77 of said act and he is required to seek further remedy under the said Act itself, if he feels aggrieved the order of PIO. Admittedly, he has not filed any appeal under the said Act and instead he has chosen to file the present complaint. The complainant has already exercised his option to seek redressal of his remedy under the said Act, therefore, the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission. So, we do not inclined to proceed with the same and hence the same is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Monika Bhagat)                                      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                                                    President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.10.2024.

Gurpreet Sharma