J U D G M E N T
Sri Rama Chandra Das, President - This is a complaint to direct to supply of certified copy of order passed in Misc case No.3/13 along with compensation of Rs.30000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- for non-supply of urgent certified copy by the Ops.
The complainant case is that a Misc case No.3/13 was instituted by the father of the complainant where he was OP No.2before OP No.1 of this complaint. In the said Misc case the OP No.1 passed order on 22.10.2013 granting interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month against the complainant but the complainant could not pay such interim maintenance for two months so on 8.1.2014 the complainant moved a petition before OP No.1 to grant 4 to 5 days time for payment of such interim maintenance to his father but it was not allowed and the complainant was remanded to jail custody by OP No.1. On 9.1.2014 when the complainant wanted to pay two months interim maintenance he was not allowed and was forced to pay Rs.3000/- for three months interim maintenance in order to release from jail custody and paid the same.
Against the said order the complainant wanted to prefer appeal before the higher authority and applied for urgent certified copy on 13.1.2014 for the order passed from initiation to 9.1.2013 of Misc case No.3/13 of maintainance tribunal of OP No.1 by affixing court fee of Rs.10/- and submitted the folios etc by spending Rs.50/- before OP No.2, who gave his endorsement so also the Clerk-in-charge on the copy application at column 22 and the Clerk-in-charge gave the counter foil mentioning as C.A No.15 dated 13.1.2014 to the complainant without giving the expected date of delivery of certified copy. The complainant approached the Ops for grant of certified copies till 23.1.2014 coming from his village Ranipada to Nayagarh spending Rs.300/- per day and lost 8 days of his labor charge. When no certified copies were issued to him he file this complaint on 24.1.2014 with the prayer as mentioned above.
The Ld. G.P appeared on 14.2.2014 on behalf of OP No.1 & 2 but though 42 days passed no written version was filed by OP no.1 & 2 so they have been set ex-parte on 11.3.2014.
The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and relied on the counterfoil of application for urgent certified copy bearing No. C.A 15 dated 13.1.2014.
The complainant made complaint against the Ops for non supply of certified copies on urgent application which should have been supplied in one day. He corroborated the averments of complaint in his evidence on affidavit and further stated that the OP No.1 intentionally did not supply the record of Misc case No.3 /13 though the requisition made much prior. The OP No.2 who received the copy application and signed on it did not give the expected date of delivery of certified copies . The counter foil filed by the complainant shows blank of that column. The Clerk -in- charge has receive the application and gave the application No as CA 15/13.1.2014 without date of delivery.
The Ops did not files the written version though 42 days time was given to them . Lastly they have been set ex-party. They did not choose to set aside the ex-parte order before the higher authority in order to file the written version. From their conduct it reveals they did not prefer to file the written version countering the complaint.
Hence from the sole affidavit of the complainant in respect of his complaint it clearly reveals though the complainant applied for the urgent certified copy of the order from the initiation to 9.2.2014 of Misc case No.3/13 before OP No.2 and the counter foil supplied registering as CA No.15 dt 13.11.2014 without mentioning the date of delivery and the OP No.1 did not supply the record of Misc case 3/13 being the presiding Officer of Maintenance Tribunal for preparation of copy though the requisition was made much prior. The Ops when noticed on 24.1.2014 with the copy of the complainant to appear and file written version and they appeared through the Ld. G.P on 14.2.2014 but did not file the written version and the case was posted to 28.2.2014 and lastly on 11.3.2014 when they were set ex-parte . During these date of posting the Ops did not
supply the certified copies to the complainant. It is very much clear that the Ops have neglected to supply the certified copies to the complainant the reason best known to them. It clearly proves the deficiency of service on their part.
The complainant relied on a decision reported in 1995 (I) OLR (cc) - 6 :1991(2) CPJ - 337:1991(2) CPR - 24 Chintamani Mishra - vrs- Tahasildar, Khandapara and others C.D Case No.131/1990 decided on 19-04-1991 in which the complainant applied for certified copy of a public document, it is held- Granting certified copy a “ Service ” - Fees paid for service to be rendered-complainant is a consumer-Non-supply of document deprives the consumer from his legal rights- Cold behavior only justified beaurocratic altitude- complainant is the beneficiary of service of Tahasildar-Collector and Sub-collector are paid salary by State to supervise the due discharge of duty by Tahasildar-State Govt. hires the services of Officers to render service to complainant-Nobody paid any heed to the grievances of Complainant- Deficiency in services established-Opp parties were directed to pay Rs.700/- jointly and severally to the complainant as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the suit - Also directed to grant certified copy of the document to the complainant within 15 days.
In the instant case the OP No.1 is the presiding Officer of Maintenance Tribunal, Nayagarh who did not supply the case record to OP No.2 for preparation of copies and OP No.2 did not intimate the date of delivery of certified copy to the complainant and thereby caused non-supply of copies. Hence both are found highly deficiency in their service Therefore complaint needs to be allow with compensation and litigation cost . Hence we order.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed on ex-parte. The Ops are jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) for the harassment and also to pay Rs.2,000/- ( Two thousand ) towards litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days and to supply the certified copies in CA No.15 dated 13.1.2014 within 7 days from the date of this order failing which the complaint is at liberty to execute this order as per the law.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 26th August , 2014.
