Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath,Member.
Dated Bolangir the 16th day of September 2015.
C.C.No.06 of 2015.
Aruna Rana, aged about- 46 years son of Nidhi Rana,
Occupation-Advocate, Resident of Laltikira,Bolangir Town,
P.O-Rajendra College, P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
Sri Amiya Kumar Sahu, OAS, Tahasildar of Patnagarh,
At/P.O/P.S- Patnagarh, Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Party.
Adv.for the complainant- Self.
Adv.for the Opp.Party - Sri D.G.Sahu,AGP & S.K.Pradhan,
Date of filing of the case- 14.01.2015
Date of order - 16.09.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, filed by the complainant, alleging deficiency in service against the Opp. Party.
2. The case of the complainant is that he applied four numbers of certified copy to the O.P on dt.26.11.2014 with requisite deposit of fees vide receipt No.M-1741678.
3. Averred, under para 335(1) of the Orissa Record Manual- applications of ordinary nature be granted copies in one/three days, bearing court fee stamp of Rs 11/- each. The O.P failed to deliver within the rules and parameter of time as framed with. Relied on application photo copies, affidavit and on the settled principle as laid down in the case- Chintamani Mishra-versus- Tahasildar, Khandapada & others-1991(2) CPR-24,page-25CPJ-337 M (Orissa SCDRC).
4. Pursuant to notice, the O.P made the version admitting the application relating to certified copies but contending, the O.P is not bound to give certified copies and the delay in delivering due to ‘other factors such as availability and accessibility of the documents applied for, Refund of fees on demand besides other constraints. Further advancing, the certified copies are ready since long and delivery failed due to no turn up of the complainant, furnishment of requisite extra court fees etc. Praying for ends of justice the petition be rejected.
5. Heard the complainant and O.P. Perused the records at hand and extensive submission at both end.
6. Admittedly, the O.P has filed the version admitting the application for certified copies have been sought and not controverted with relevant rules, regulations and laws relevant to such application rather sheltered under “constraint of duty”, which should not be.
7. We draw our strength from the aforesaid settled principle in the case-Chintamani Mishra Vs Tahasildar,Khandapada & others-1991.we found to be a fit case in the present context and it is crystal clear that the O.P had not acted strictly under the principle and in deligent manner for which the complainant not able to receive the certified copy. The O.P is in contortions without any lawful basis to deregulate the issue.
8. In the result, the complaint is on merit and the O.P is liable for the deficiency within provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, to the petitioner.
Hence ordered’
ORDER.
(1.) The O.P-Amiya Kumar Sahu, is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only for the loss harassment and mental agony sustained, within 30 days of this order failing which interest @ 6% P.A shall accrue on the same from the date of institution of this case till payment, inclusive of legal expenses.
(II.) The O.P in charge is also directed to supply the certified copy by observing all legal provisions inclusive of fees within above noted time frame.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015.
I agree.
( G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
