BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA.

      Complaint No.74 of 2019

Date of Instt. 02.08.2019

Date of Decision: 23.01.2020

Atul Khanna, aged 45 years, son of Satpal Khanna resident of 32-Germany Dass Park, Kapurthala.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Sewa Kendra-Suwidha Centre, D. C. Office, Kapurthala through its Incharge/Manager/Project Manager.

2.       State of Punjab through Deputy Commissioner, D. C. Office, Kapurthala.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh                    (President)

Smt. Rajita Sareen                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. T. S. Dhillon, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Pardeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1 alongwith Sh. Sarabdeep Singh, Manager.

OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he has applied for certified copy of the application of mutation No.32398 alongwith other documents and also affixed the requisite court fee of the Government i.e. Rs.200/- with an amount of Rs.30/- on account of facilitation charges on the part of OP No.1. The complainant paid a special facilitation charges to the respondents. The said certified copy was applied on 24.12.2018 for which the respondent No.1 issued an acknowledgement receipt No.111/21085/241218 having Sewa Kendra counter 1, Token No.16 having another No.7729759. The respondents assured the complainant that the certified copy of the documents, which were applied by the complainant through the acknowledgement receipt would be delivered by 04.01.2019. After 04.01.2019, the complainant visited the respondent No.1 for several times and enquired about the status of the application moved by the complainant and each and every time, the representative of respondent No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other including the pretext of administrative duties on the elections, winter vacations etc., but till date, no documents has been supplied to the complainant against the aforesaid application of the complainant. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents because the respondents have miserably failed to provide the services to the complainant against the application dated 24.12.2018 and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to supply the certified copies of the documents applied vide application dated 24.12.2018 within five working days and further, respondents be directed to give an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment, agony and unfair trade practices and further respondents be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but OP No.2 despite service did not come present and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum and further, the complaint is false, vague, unsubstantial and baseless. Thus, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has applied for obtaining the certified copy of application of the mutation No.32398 alongwith other documents on 24.12.2018, vide Application No.111/21085/241218, wherein the complainant paid Rs.200/- on account of Govt. Fee and Rs.30/- as facilitation charges to both the OPs. The answering respondent has duly executed his part by forwarding the application to the concerned department i.e. Deputy Commissioner Office/OP No.2 on 24.12.2018 for the supply of the documents as requested by the complainant, but even on the repeated request of the answering respondent, the same was not received by the answering respondent from the concerned department. It is further alleged that the instant complaint is not maintainable qua answering OP, as the services provided by the answering OP are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, rather the work of the OP as facilitator is governed by the provisions of Punjab Right To Service Act, 2011 and as per, Section 20 of the Punjab Right To Service Act, 2011 filing of any case in the Civil Court is categorically barred and as such, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed and further submitted that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. On merits, the factum in regard to applying for certified copy of mutation as well as other documents is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                The complainant filed Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1 and whereby reasserted the entire story as detailed in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective case, both the parties placed on the file their respective documents alongwith their pleadings.

5.                We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file with the able assistance of both the counsels.

6.                We have deeply considered the allegations leveled by complainant as well as its reply given by OPs and find that the complainant has admittedly applied for certified copy of application of mutation No.32398 alongwith some other documents on 24.12.2018 after depositing the requisite fee i.e. Rs.200/- on account of Govt. Fee and further, Rs.30/- on account of Facilitation Charges and as per detail of the application Ex.C-1, the certified copies are to be supplied to the complainant on 04.01.2019, but till the date of filing of complaint and even thereafter the said certified copy of documents are not supplied to the complainant and due to that grudge that the OPs has not provided proper services to the complainant, the complainant came to this Forum.

7.                In reply to version of the complainant, the OP No.1 who is contesting the instant complaint, took mainly two grounds, firstly OP No.1 alleged in Para No.4 of the preliminary objection that the OP No.1 has duly executed his part by forwarding the application to the concerned department i.e. Deputy Commissioner Office and despite making repeated request, the said certified copy of the documents were not received by the OP No.1 from the concerned department.

8.                The next plea taken by the OP No.1 is that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, rather the OP No.1 is a facilitator and he is governed by Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 and as such, the complainant is not a consumer and moreover, Section-20 of the aforesaid Act i.e. Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 filing of any case in the Civil Court qua OPs is barred and further alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  OPs.

9.                First of all, we take the plea of the complainant that the OP No.1 is not providing the services as per Section-2(o) of Consumer Protection Act, but we find that the case of the complainant is virtually covered under the aforesaid provision i.e. Section 2(o), means facilitate to process any service is virtually included in the definition of service and similarly in the present case, the OP as a facilitator obtained Rs.30/- from the complainant as a consideration for that services and as such, we are of the opinion that the OP No.1 is a service provider and complainant got the services from a facilitator i.e. OP No.1 after paying its consideration, therefore, complainant is a consumer and accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the complainant apparently falls under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.               Coming to the other allegation of the OP No.1 for which he alleged that the application of the complainant was duly executed and forwarded the said application to the concerned department on the same date, but till today, the documents were not received from the concerned department. We find that the OP No.1 is not aware about his duty as a facilitator, he is not doing as a Post Office to get letter and deliver to the other party, rather the duty of the OP No.1 being a Sewa Kendra, to collect the applications from the consumer and then execute the same by hook and crook from the concerned department and supply the services to the complainant within a stipulated period, means the date given on the application, but the OP is shirking from his duty simply shifting its onus upon the OP No.2/Office of Deputy Commissioner, whereas the Office of Deputy Commissioner is not a facilitator, rather the same is governing the function of administration of the District and it is not duty of the Deputy Commissioner Office to supply the copy, which has been applied to the Sewa Kendra, who is working as a facilitator. It is duty of the Sewa Kendra to execute the application and forward the same to the concerned department and thereafter follow-up the same by personally or by way of sending reminder in writing, but in this case, the OP No.1 never made stern efforts to get execute the services of the complainant, by sending any reminder to the concerned department for supply of the copy nor the OP ever visited the said department, if so, then the OP has to mention the dates and place on the file any reminder in writing given to the concerned department, but in the absence of these type of evidence, we are of the considered opinion that there is apparently grave deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP No.1.

11.               Further, we analyze the plea of the OP No.1 that Section 20 of the Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 creates a bar to file any case before the Civil Court qua the aforesaid Act. From the wording of the Section- 20 of the Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011, it reveals that a bar is imposed only not to file any litigation before the Civil Court not to the Forum and as such, the aforesaid Section does not create any hindrance to the complainant to approach this Forum for settlement of his grievances.    

12.               Apart from above, we further referred Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act, which gave an additional remedy to the consumer to file the complaint before the Consumer Forum and as such, the provision referred by OP i.e. Section-20 of the Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 does not create any hindrance to the complainant and even there is no bar to file a consumer complaint. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the OP No.1 is negligent and there is a deficiency in service and accordingly, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed from OP No.1. The complaint qua OP No.2 is without merits and the same is dismissed.

13.               In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 is directed to supply the certified copy of the documents applied, vide application dated 24.12.2018 by the complainant, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and further, OP No.1 is directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. We like to make it clear that if OP No.1 failed to supply the certified copy as ordered above within the stipulated period as given above, then the OP No.1 will be liable to pay Rs.500/- per day to the complainant till the date of supply of certified copies. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

14.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Rajita Sareen                 Karnail Singh 23.01.2020                                    Member                         President