IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 54/2010 (Filed on 26.03.2010) Between: Samuel Titus, Parattoor House, Azhoor, Pathanamthitta. .... Complainant. And: Secretary, Municipal Office, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. P. Unnikrishnan) .... Opposite party. ORDERSri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he is a resident of Ward No. XXV/143 of Pathanamthitta Municipality and the opposite party is the Secretary of Pathanamthitta Municipality. As per the new Government Order, the registration of marriage has become compulsory. Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party for registering his marriage at the Municipality as his marriage was solemnized at Marthoma Church, Pathanamthitta. At the time of registration, the complainant was charged with ` 250 as late fees and he was also asked to pay ` 25 for the issue of the marriage certificate. The charge for late fee and the amount demanded for the issue of marriage certificate by the opposite party are illegal and deficiency of service. Hence this complaint for the realisation of the late fees of ` 250 charged by the opposite party and an order for a direction to the opposite party for issuing the marriage certificate free of cost along with compensation of ` 1,000 and cost of this proceedings from the opposite party. 3. The opposite party filed a version with the following contentions: Opposite party admitted that the complainant is a permanent resident of Pathanamthitta Municipality and the registration of marriage was made compulsory by the Government. On the basis of the marriage certificate of the complainant issued from Pathanamthitta Marthoma Church, the complainant’s marriage was registered at the Municipality after complying all the formalities required. As part of the prevailing rules, the opposite party is entitled to collect marriage registration fees including late fees. The latest Government Order in respect of marriage registration did not exempt the marriage registration fees etc. The said order provides only extension of the period and to relax certain formalities. Therefore, the complainant’s allegations against the opposite party is baseless and the complaint is against the prevailing rules. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint, as they have not committed any deficiency of service or any illegal acts. 4. On the basis of the averments of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of the complainant who had been examined as PW1 on the basis of his proof affidavit and Ext.A1. For the opposite party, there is no oral or documentary evidence. But the counsel for the opposite party cross-examined PW1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that the opposite party had collected ` 250 as late fees for the registration of the complainant’s marriage and they have demanded another ` 25 for the issuance of the marriage certificate. According to the complainant, the above said acts of the opposite party is illegal and is a deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable for the complainant in the light of the new Govt. order regarding marriage registration. 7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit and one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and document produced is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the receipt dated 15.2.2010 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant for receiving ` 250 as the delayed marriage registration fees. 8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that they have not committed any illegal acts and they are entitled to collect late fees for the delayed marriage registration and to collect required fees for the issuance of marriage certificate. According to the opposite party, the latest Govt. orders in respect of marriage registration has not been violated by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant and the complainant’s allegations are baseless and is not entertainable by this Forum. 9. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite party, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But they have cross-examined the complainant. 10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the materials on record. But we have not found any material evidence in favour of the complainant’s claim that the late fees collected by the opposite party vide Ext.A1 receipt is illegal. The complainant has not adduced any rules or Govt. orders in favour of the complainant for supporting his claim. Further in our view, the marriage registration is a mandatory provision implemented by the Govt. The service provided by the local bodies as per the above said mandatory provision is not a service as defined by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no element of trade or a hiring of service. In view of the above, the complainant had no consumer relationship with the opposite party municipality. Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable and allowable and we find no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party as the marriage is already registered by the opposite party and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2011. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Samuel Titus Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Receipt dated 15.02.2010 for Rs.250 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Samuel Titus, Parattoor House, Azhoor, Pathanamthitta. (2) Secretary, Municipal Office, Pathanamthitta. (3) The Stock File. | 
