Delhi

North East

CC/240/2023

Akshay Goswami - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shivani Verma - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 240/23

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Akshay Goswami R/o H. No. C325/10, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	Smt. Shivani Verma, Child Development Project Officer, Block-Shikarpur, Bulandshahr, U.P.	Opposite Party

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party i.e. Smt. Shivani Verma, Child Development Project Officer, District-Bulandshahr. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant sent through post an application no. 22/EV dated 22.11.22 under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act to the Opposite party for obtaining certified copies of public documents. The Complainant has also submitted a postal order of Rs. 100/- with the said application as partial fee. It has further been stated that after the receipt of the said application by the Opposite Party, the Complainant waited for considerable period of time for their reply but no reply was received in that regards. On being aggrieved, the Complainant served a legal notice in the office of Opposite Party on 31.12.22 by registered post. It is submitted that after the service of legal notice, the Opposite Party sent a letter to the Complainant by ordinary post. It is alleged that while he demanded the certified copies of certain documents, the Opposite Party has sent him only the uncertified photocopies which have no value in the eye of law. As per the Complainant, those documents are not in accordance with section 76 of Indian Evidence Act. It is alleged that by doing so, the Opposite Party has failed to fulfil their duties towards public as public servant and misused her authority as a public servant. The Complainant has also filed certain case laws in support of his case.
2. On being aggrieved the Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that the Opposite Party has violated the Complainant’s rights under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 by not providing service as per rules and the said action of Opposite Party being against the law, has caused physical and mental harassment as well as financial loss to the Complainant. It is prayed by the Complainant that Opposite Party be directed to provide the Complainant true copies of the required documents free of cost without any delay and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing physical and mental agony and financial loss and also Rs.20,000/-.
3. We have heard the Complainant and perused the file. The grievance of the Complainant is that he applied to the Opposite party for supply of certified copies of public documents under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but the Opposite Party supplied merely the uncertified photocopies of the documents which has no value in the eye of law.  The Complainant has submitted that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019   by virtue of the fact that he has paid the required fee to the Opposite Party for the issuance of certified copies of certain documents and the Opposite Party has committed deficiency of service by not complying the provision i.e. section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. The Complainant has filed the present complaint claiming to be a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and seeking compensation from the Opposite Party i.e. Child Development Project Officer, District-Bulandshahr.
5. The Complainant has relied upon two judgements in support of his case which are Kamlesh Gupta  Vs. Tehsildar, Gyanpur dated 09.09.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhadoi (UP) and Sanjeev Yadav Vs. Assistant Director, Preliminary Investigation Officer, Bikaner.
6. We have perused those judgements filed by the Complainant and are of the considered view that these judgement are not helpful to the Complainant in view of the fact that in this context, we are bound by the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by full bench of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter Secretary, Bar Council Of U.P. Vs. Ajay Pandey (R.P. no. 2028 of 2012) along with other similar petitions and applications wherein people had claimed compensation from the Public Information Officer of various public authorities on varying grounds like delayed or unsatisfactory information etc. Hon’ble National Commission has held that “no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a consumer forum.”
7. In view of above case law and discussion, we are of the considered view that as the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of aforesaid nature, the present complaint is not maintainable.
8. Hence, present complaint is dismissed accordingly, with liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Forum / Court in accordance with law.
9. Order announced on 21.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)        Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)             President