Orissa

Bargarh

CC/08/69

Niyaz Alli - Complainant(s)

Versus

State of Orissa - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S.P.Mahapatra and others

07 Aug 2009

ORDER


OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT),AT:COURT PREMISES,PO/DIST:BARGARH,PIN:768028,ORISSA
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/69

Niyaz Alli
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Biranchi Narayan Dharua
State of Orissa
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA 2. SHRI BINOD KUMAR PATI 3. SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Sri S.P.Mahapatra and others

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President . In brief the Complainant's case is that the Complainant has applied for granting of certified copy of documents involved in O.L.R. Lease Case No.3, 5 and 9 of 1976 by paying the requisite cost, fee and expenditure before the Opposite Party No.2(two). But the Opposite Party No.2 has delivered some other copies of some other documents which was not applied for, as per the description of documents and record mentioned in his copy application. Due to malafide intention , with intention to cause undue harassment to the Complainant, the Opposite Party did not grant the certified copy of the documents and records as asked by the Complainant. Alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant filed this case against the Opposite Parties and claims Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards harassment and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation cost. The Opposite Parties contends that, the dispute is not maintainable as because, the Complainant is not a consumer with in the Consumer Protection Act and also the case is barred by limitation. Copy application No. 654/2005 was received in the Tahasil office and the certified copies of the available documents were delivered to the applicant on Dt.19/07/2005. The Complainant has not given the details for the documents, the certified copies of which have not been granted to him. After receipt of the certified copies, the Complainant has never made any objeciton for the other documents for which the copy was applied for nor did he brought the said fact to the notice of the Opposite Party No.2(two). The certified copies have been issued as per the copy application and the documents which were available in the case record bearing Lease Case No. 3, 5 and 9 of 1976. The Opposite Parties have never any intention to cause any harm, harassment or loss of any kind to the Complainant, and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, as such the Complainant is not entitled for compensation. The Opposite Parties prays for dismissal of the case with cost. Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Party's version as well as the copies of documents available on record. It is not disputed that, the Complainant has applied for grant of certified copies of some documents involved in O.L.R. Lease Case No. 3, 5 and 9 of 1976 vide copy application No. 654 Dt. 15/07/2005 before the Opposite Party No.2 (two), and copy of some documents were delivered to the applicant on Dt. 19/07/2005. After receipt of the certified copies the Complainant has never made any objection for other documents for which the copy was applied to. The Complainant has not given the details particulars for the documents which he had applied for, as per the certified copy of copy application No. 654/2005 filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has also not given the details for the documents, the certified copies of which have not been granted to him. No material is placed by the Complainant to prove his case. Further, the Complainant has made his copy application before the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt. 15/07/2005 and the Opposite Party No.2(two) has issued and delivered the certified copy on Dt. 19/07/2005. The present dispute filed on Dt. 30/10/2008 is barred by limitation as per the Consumer Protection Act-1986. Granting of certified copy of copy application No. 654/2005 by the Tahasildar, applied on Dt.03/07/2007 vide copy application No. 06/2007 by the Advocate of the Complainant can not extend the time of limitation for filing of the present dispute. In the result, the complaint has got not merit as well as barred by limitation. Complaint dismissed. Complaint disposed of accordingly. No cost/Compensation. Typed to my dictation and corrected by me. I agree, I agree, (Sri Gouri Shankar Pradhan) P r e s i d e n t. (Sri Binod Kumar Pati) (Miss Bhagyalaxmi Dora) Member. Member.




......................MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA
......................SHRI BINOD KUMAR PATI
......................SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN