Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/137

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sewa Kendra - Opp.Party(s)

Charanjit Sidana

03 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                        137 of 2019

Date of Institution:            24.05.2019

Date of Decision :              03.12.2019

 

Vijay Kumar aged about 54 years s/o Banarsi Dass, r/o House No.18-A, Guru Nanak Colony, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Sewa Kendra, Mini Secretariat, Faridkot through its Head or In-Charge.
2. District Revenue Officer, Faridkot.
3. Head Registry Clerk, Faridkot.  

                                                                                          ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:        Sh Charanjit Sidana, Ld Counsel for complainant,     

                    Sh Gurpreet Singh on behalf of OP-1,

                    Sh  Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-2 & 3.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for deficiency in service by not providing certified copy of sale deed and to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him besides litigation expense.

 

cc no. 137 of 2019

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he wanted to have certified copy of sale deed dated 17.06.1989 executed by Raja Harinder Singh in favour of Guru Nanak Government Employees Co-operative Housing Building Society, Faridkot and for this purpose, he approached OP-1 and deposited requisite fee against receipt dated 19.03.2019 and date of delivery was reflected as 29.03.2019 on said receipt. On 23.03.2019, complainant approached OP-1 to collect the copy of sale deed, but OP-1 sent him to OP-3 and when complainant approached OP-3, it advised complainant to go to Op-2. Complainant approached OP-2, who asked him to come on another day. OP-2 kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and despite several requests, copy of sale deed was not delivered to him. on 3.04.2019, OPs flatly refused to provide the copy of sale deed to complainant. Though complainant has filed requisite fees and is entitled to receive the copy of document sought by him, but despite repeated requests, OPs have failed to deliver him the copy of sale deed sought by him, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 29.05.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                       OP-1 filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has

cc no. 137 of 2019

misrepresented all the facts. He has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has levelled false allegations against answering OP. It is averred that complainant submitted his application on 19.03.2019 for providing certified copy of sale deed dated 17.06.1989. Request of complainant was proceeded to concerned department as per procedure and concerned department informed OP-1 that no such document of sale deed dated 17.06.1989 exists as on 17.06.1989, due to Saturday, it was official holiday and therefore, no sale deed dated 17.06.1989 was found. OP-1 conveyed complainant that on 17.06.1989, it was Saturday and was official holiday and no such sale deed dated 17.06.1989 is available with them. on this complainant took back his file from OP-1 to rectify the objection, but instead of removing the objection, he filed the present complaint on false grounds. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and complainant has filed the present complaint only to cause harassment to them. All the other allegations are also refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                                              OP-2 and 3 filed reply wherein denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as he has tried to mislead the Forum and moreover, information demanded by him is concerned with third party. All the allegations of complainant are denied being incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

6                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in

cc no. 137 of 2019

evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                                  To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurjant Singh Ex OP-1/1 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Satish Kumar Ex OP-2,3/1 and also closed the same.

8                                                      From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that on 19.03.2019, he applied for certified copy of the sale deed dated 17.06.1989 and paid requisite fees Rs.1150/-to OP-1. OPs gave delivery date for releasing the copy for 29.03.2019, but did not provide him certified copy of sale deed order and kept putting him off on one pretext or the other and finally refused to provide him copy of said sale deed on 3.04.2019, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, OP-1 admitted that complainant applied for certified copy of sale deed dated17.06.1989 and it is also admitted that he paid Rs.1150/- to then as per rates fixed by State Government.

9                                        OP-1 stressed that request of complainant was proceeded to concerned department, which informed OP-1 that no such document of sale deed dated 17.06.1989 exists as on 17.06.1989, due to Saturday, it was official holiday and therefore, no sale deed dated 17.06.1989 was found.  All this was conveyed to complainant. he was told that on 17.06.1989, it was Saturday and was official holiday and there is no sale deed dated 17.06.1989 with them. Thereafter, he took back his file for removing objection, but instead of removing the objection, he filed

cc no. 137 of 2019

the present complaint on false grounds. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. On the other hand, Ld counsel for OP-2 and OP-3 have also denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                      We have thoroughly gone through the file and have carefully perused the documents produced on record by parties. It is observed that grievance of complainant is that despite his repeated requests, OPs did not provide certified copy of sale deed dated 17.06.1989 to him, which caused harassment and mental agony to him, but on the other hand from the careful observation of pleadings and record produced, it is made out that sale deed dated 17.06.1989 sought by complainant is not available because on 17.06.1989, it was Saturday and government offices remain closed on Saturday and Sunday. Moreover, it is brought before the Forum by OPs that complainant was clearly explained all these facts and he was asked to rectify the date of said sale deed, but instead of rectifying his application form, he preferred to file complaint before this Forum, which is not appropriate on his part. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11                                   From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 in not releasing certified copy of sale deed dated 17.06.1989 to complainant as no sale deed was registered on 17.06.1989 due to falling of Saturday on that day. Saturday has been declared official holiday in all Punjab Government offices and no official work is done during Saturday. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case there are no orders as to

cc no. 137 of 2019

costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 03.12.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

          Member                               President