Complaint No: 235 of 2022.

                                                          Date of Institution: 18.11.2022.

                                                                   Date of order: 06.12.2023.

Sandeep Kaur aged about 43 years W/o Late Sh. Darshan Singh, resident of Village Ram Nagar, Gurdaspur Tehsil & District Gurdaspur. Aadhar Card No. 2409 6263 9202.

                                                                                                                                                                         …........Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                        VERSUS

1.       Sewa Kendra: D.C. Office Gurdaspur. PIN CODE – 143521.

2.       Chief Registrar of Births & Deaths, Punjab Chandigarh. 160036.

3.       Local Registrar of Births & Deaths, P.H.C Ranjit Bagh, Tehsil Dinanagar District Gurdaspur. 143530.

4.       Punjab State through its collector Gurdaspur. 143521.

                                                                                                                                                               ….Opposite parties.

                                       Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present:  For the Complainant: Sh.S.S. Litter, Advocate.

               For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Ashish Katoch, DM.  

    For the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4: Sh.Kulwinder Singh, Computer Operator.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Sandeep Kaur, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Sewa Kendra Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that unfortunately, the husband of the complainant namely Darshan Singh, expired on dated 23.08.2018 at village Ram Nagar, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur. It is pleaded that after the death of her husband, the complainant applied for death certificate of her deceased husband in the Sewa Kendra Gurdaspur i.e. the opposite party No. 1, by submitting alongwith prescribed application form, her all the identity proofs, i.e. copy of Aadhar card, copy of voter card, copy of PAN card and copy of identity card of Bhagat Puran Singh Health insurance policy, issued by Punjab Govt. and all these documents / identity cards are showing and proving that, the complainant is legally wedded wife of her deceased husband namely Darshan Singh, as mentioned over the same i.e. wife of Darshan Singh. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No. 2, 3 and 4 through the opposite party No. 1, have issued death certificate of her deceased husband, vide Registration No.DR/ES/18/0038123029, Document Sr. No. ES13549138, with Old Registration Number for reference: 8 vide DPH-369, on dated 04.08.2022, under signature of concerned authorized signatory, and in which, spouse's name has been wrongly mentioned as Kashmir Kaur, instead of Sandeep Kaur i.e. the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant after receiving the above said death certificate, immediately moved an application for the correction of spouse's name in the Sewa Kendra Gurdaspur by paying prescribed fee, but the opposite parties have intentionally and deliberately failed to make a correction and asked the complainant for submitting her marriage Registration Certificate, then the complainant answered that, in her all the identity proofs, documents etc. her name i.e. Sandeep Kaur have been mentioned as spouse's name, and there was no requirement of her marriage registration certificate because, when she was married with her husband, then it was not deemed necessary for registration of marriage certificate, and further requested to make for the correction over the same. It is further alleged that the opposite parties have intentionally and deliberately failed to make the correction, besides so many requests and visits to the offices of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are also service provider to the citizens of the India, but their acts not providing proper services and negligence in their services amounts to deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that complainant is legally entitled for the correction in her husband's death certificate, and he has paid requisite fee, in the counter of the opposite party No. 2, but they have not supplied the same. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to issue death certificate of the deceased husband of the complainant, after making a necessary corrections by editing / adding the name of the complainant, into the spouse name of the deceased and also be directed to pay Rs.50,000/ as compensation suffered due to unnecessary physical and mental harassment, and again and again personal visits to the office of the opposite parties and Rs.20,000/ as litigation expenses and any other relief, for which this Ld. Commission deems sustainable may also be granted to the complainant and complaint of the complainant may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through Sh.Ashish Katoch, District Manager, filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant is guilty of misrepresenting the facts and of “Supprescio Veri” and “Exprescio Falsi” to the extent that the complainant has completely suppressed true and material facts in the present complaint. It is pleaded that the complainant has approached this Hon'ble Commission with unclean hands and the complaint filed by the complainant is false, vague, unsubstantial and baseless, thus the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone and in the complaint requisite court fees has not been affixed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that complaint filed by the complainant is liable to rejected. It is further pleaded that the complainant has applied for obtaining the death certificate of her husband Darshan Singh vide Application No. 38123029 dated 21.07.2022, wherein the complainant paid Rs.15/- on account of Govt. Fee and Rs.65/- as facilitation charges to the answering opposite party. It is further pleaded that the answering opposite party has duly executed his part by making application for the same and then further forwarding the application to the concerned department i.e. Local Registrar, Birth and Death, Gurdaspur i.e. opposite party No.3 on the very same day for the supply of the certificate as requested by the complainant, whereby although the same has been issued by the concerned department but it has been alleged by the complainant that the Spouse Name in the Death Certificate has been mentioned as Kashmir Kaur instead of Sandeep Kaur, on which the complainant has re-submitted another application for the correction of the Spouse Name in the Death Certificate with the answering opposite party. It is further pleaded that accordingly, the application filed by the complainant was forwarded to the concerned department by the answering opposite party wherein the concerned department has raised an objection that since as per their record, the Spouse Name of the deceased is mentioned as Kashmir Kaur, therefore, the complainant was requested to submit her marriage certificate for proceeding with her application. Upon which the complainant was duly informed to provide the document sought by the concerned department, nonetheless, the complainant failed to provide the documents requested by the concerned department. It is further pleaded that as a result of which, the said application of the complainant has not been processed by the concerned department. It is further pleaded that the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in-after to be called as the Act only) against the answering opposite party is not maintainable, as the service provided by the answering opposite party as facilitator is governed by the provisions of Punjab Right To Service Act, 2011. It is further pleaded that the Learned District Commission has no Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, wherein additional remedy is provided for speedy, inexpensive and affordable relief to the consumers, only if there is no express bar, under some Statutory provisions, whereas in the present case in hand such bar is apparent as per the provision of Section 20 of the Punjab Right To Service Act, 2011, which has been reproduced below for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Commission:-

"Bar of jurisdiction of Courts: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder".

It is further pleaded that the opposite party No.1 being a single window operator has appropriately discharged their part of duty, firstly, at the time of an application for issuance of the death certificate and thereafter, for correction of the Spouse Name in the issued Death Certificate, wherein on both the occasions, the opposite party No.1 has duly executed their duty by forwarding the same to the concerned department / authority i.e. Local Registrar, Birth and Death, Hoshiarpur (Opposite Party No.3) to the extent of their statutory duty and liability, in case, if it is not performed or executed, then the complainant has the remedy under Right to Service Act, 2011 for the redressal of her grievance, as in the present case, neither the complainant was a consumer, nor the opposite party No.1 was service provider in an independent capacity, nor the dispute was a consumer dispute, and as such the consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that in the present case, there has been no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the answering opposite party as the service of the facilitator is not covered under the definition of "Service" as per the provision of Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which has been reproduced below for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Commission:-

2. 42. "Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service"

It is further pleaded that on account of the above mentioned narration of events it is clear the complaint filed by the complainant is a clear cut illustration of the manner in which process of law is misused for ulterior and oblique motives. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed qua the answering opposite party and in toto.

          On merits, the opposite party No.1 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 to 4 appeared through Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Computer Operator and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. As per the report of the Sarpanch, Lambardar ANM, Asha worker of Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur, the complainant was not legally widded wife of decreased Darshan Singh. So the present complaint may be dismissed on this ground and no cause of action has accrued to file the present complaint before this Hon'ble Court. It is pleaded that as per the record of Birth and Death Sh. Darshan Singh expired on 23.08.2018 at Village Ram Nagar. It is further pleaded that after the death of Darshan Singh his brother Jaswant Singh has reported to the Birth and Death office regarding his death. It is further pleaded that complainant is not legally wife of the decreased Darshan Singh, However in this regard the opposite parties No.3 enquired the matter from the concerned Sarpanch, Lambardar, A.N.M and Asha worker of Village Ram Nagar, District Gurdaspur. It is further pleaded that they have submitted the reports that Darshan Singh Son of Jarnail Singh R/o Village Ram Nagar died on 23.08.2018 and her wife also died on 29.07.2007. Both are issue less. It is further pleaded that as per the statement of the said respectable persons and ANM, Asha Worker Complainant Sandeep Kaur is not wife of deceased Darshan Singh and she has falsely fabricated the documents which show that she is wife of deceased Darshan Singh and getting the benefits of deceased. So complainant may be dismissed on this ground. It is further pleaded that all the said documents which was attached with the application Form submitted in the opposite party No.1 made by her are false and fabricated because as per statement of respectable persons of Village Ram Nagar Smt. Kashmir Kaur expired on 29.07.2007. It is further pleaded that the complainant is not legally widded wife of the deceased Darshan Singh. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No.3 S.MO. Ranjit Bagh has obtained the report from the concerned Village Ram Nagar from A.N.M and Asha worker who enter the death of deceased in death Register. They have reported that Smt. Kashmir Kaur was the wife of Darshan Singh and Smt. Kashmir Kaur expired on 29.07.2007. It is further pleaded that answering opposite parties No.2 to 4 are unable to rectified the name from the death certificate of Kashmir Kaur to Sandeep Kaur. She also not submitted valid certificate of Marriage before the office of Birth and Death Gurdaspur.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.2 to 4 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Kaur, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9.

6.       The opposite party No.1 has filed an affidavit of Sh. Ashish Katoch, (District Manager of Opposite Party No.1, Gurdaspur) alongwith reply.

7.       The opposite parties No.2, 3 and 4 has filed an affidavit of Dr.Anita Gupta, (S.M.O., Ranjit Bagh, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-2,3,4/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2,3,4/1 to Ex.OP-2,3,4/4 alongwith reply.

8.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments filed by the opposite parties No.2 to 4, but not filed by the complainant and opposite party No.1.

10.     Counsel for the complainant has argued that husband of the complainant namely Darshan Singh had died and when complainant obtained the death certificate of her husband she found that opposite parties had wrongly mentioned the name of the spouse as Kashmir Kaur instead of name of name of complainant i.e. Sandeep Kaur. It is further argued that complainant had moved an application for correction of name on the basis of the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 but the said prayer was declined even after receipt of legal notice.

11.     On the other hand Sh.Ashish Katoch District Manager of opposite party No.1 and Sh.Kulwinder Singh Computer Operator of opposite parties No.2 to 4 have argued that after death of Sh.Darshan Singh, his brother Sh.Jaswant Singh reported the death with the opposite parties No.2 to 4 and as per information and enquiry from Sarpanch, Lambardar, A.N.M. and Asha Worker of the village it had come on record that wife of Sh.Darshan Singh was Smt.Kashmir Singh who had died on 29.07.2007 and accordingly the name of spouse is correctly mentioned in the death certificate.

12.     We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and representatives of the opposite parties and gone through the record.

13.     Perusal of record shows that Sarpanch, Lambardar, A.N.M. and Asha Worker have given in writing that name of wife of Sh.Darshahn Singh was Smt.Kashmir Kaur who had died on 29.07.2007. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that she is the second wife of Sh.Darshan Singh and since the dispute is regarding the second marriage of the complainant with said Darshan Singh is involved and as such dispute can be resolved through competent court of law having jurisdiction. Moreover, perusal of record shows that service provided by the opposite parties being facilitator does not fall within definition of service and is covered under the contract of personal service for the welfare of the citizens. Accordingly, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

14.     Accordingly, the present complaint being legally not maintainable is dismissed with no order as to costs.   

15.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

16.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                         President  

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Dec. 06, 2023                                                Member

*YP*