Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/63/2018

B.Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Registar High court - Opp.Party(s)

B.Ramesh

18 Oct 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :25.04.2018           Date of disposal            :18.10.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.63/2018

 

DATED TUESDAY THE 18^th  DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

B.Ramesh,

Advocate,

222, New Additional Law Chamber,

High Court Campus,

Chennai-600 104.                                                                  …..Complainant

 

 

 ..Vs..

 

1.   Superintendent,

Copyist Section,

High Court,

Chennai-600 104.

 

 

2.   Assistant Registrar,

Appellate Side,

High Court,

Chennai-600 104.

 

3.   Registrar General,

High Court,

Chennai-600 104.                                                    …..Opposite Parties

 

Counsel for Complainant                          : Party-In-Person

Counsel for  opposite parties 1 to 3            : M/s.Santhanaraman,

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER II:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- for compensation towards deficiency in service to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- for metal agony, hardship and other expenses.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant stated that as per High Court Appellate side Rules 1965, Order 12, Rule 1 & 2 parties related to proceedings, and as per Order 12, Rule 3 & 4, third parties not related to the proceedings are entitled to get certified copies of documents.  The Hon’ble Madras High Court had confirmed the same in W.P. No.28202/2012.  Accordingly, the complainant had applied for certified copies of documents of Crl. O.P. No.2183/2018 to the first opposite party C.D. Section of Madras High Court by affixing Rs.5/- court fee.  The C.D.S.R. No. is 5660/2018.  The complainant was ready for paying the additional charges for the documents.  No receipt was issued for the court fee affixed.    The complainant claims that since he had paid Rs.5/- as court fee he is a consumer.  The first opposite party had returned the application on 16.03.2018 stating that ‘Typeset contains xerox copies.  Hence CA returned.  Typeset contains copies of documents from various department.  Hence copies cannot be certified as per AS Rules’ and the complainant received the same on 20.03.2018.  The complainant had filed the typeset in Hon’ble Madras High Court and the same was accepted by the Hon’ble Madras High Court.  In such a situation, refusing to give the certified copies of documents to the petitioner itself is against law and rules and also against High Court Appellate side Rules 1965, Order 12, Rule 1 & 2.  Refusal to provide copies of certified documents to the petitioner itself is against the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 14 and 21 of Constitution.   Hence the complainant had undergone mental agony and hardship and it is a deficiency in service.  According to NCDRC order in RP 2135/2000 the complainant is a consumer, and all the opposite parties are collectively responsible for the actions of 1^st opposite party.  Providing documents is an administrative duty.  The Hon’ble justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Hon. Justice Venugopal Division bench in WP No.28202/2012 issued a judgement and as per that complainant is entitled to get the certified copies of all the documents filed in Appellate side based on the CD application, whereas it was refused without understanding the rules and judgements by opposite parties.   The complainant had sent notice to opposite parties and till the date of filing this complaint no reply has been received by the complainant.  This action of opposite parties shows the deficiency of service.  The complainant relied upon the Hon’ble Madras High Court judgement in WP No.28202/2012 and the facts of the case is fit to this complaint and hence the complainant is entitled to get certified copies of documents.  The complainant prayed Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony and hardship suffered.  Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The 3rd opposite party submits this written version on behalf of all the opposite parties.  The opposite parties deny all the averments stated in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  The opposite parties submits that complainant had filed a copy of application dated 14.03.2018 to furnish copies of the typed set of papers filed in Crl.O.P.No.2183/2018.  The opposite parties submits that assignment of C.D.Sr.No. as per the entries made in the relevant register by itself is the proof of payment.  In practice the assignment of C.D.SR. No. as per the entries made in the relevant register is the evidence of payment.  The opposite parties submits that complainant's copy application was returned with an endorsement stating "typed set contains xerox copies.  Hence CA returned", typed set contains copies of documents from various department.  Hence copies cannot be certified as per Appellate side Rules".  The opposite parties submits that certified copies can be given only by an officer upon verification of the originals, or it can be given by an officer if he/she is in possession of the original documents.  Since the complainant had filed only xerox copies in the typed set, the authenticity of documents could not be confirmed and hence without verification or possession of such original documents, certified copies cannot be issued as per Appellate Side Rules.  The complainant submits that complainants reliance on the judgement of the Division Bench in WP No.28202 of 2012 to substantiate his claim is untenable for the reason that in the above referred case, a third party had applied for issuance of certain documents and obtained permission in strict compliance of the requirements of Order 12 Rule 3 of Appellate Side Rules, whereas the complainant herein did not adhere to the rules of procedure.  The opposite parties submits that the facts involved in the above writ petition and the facts involved in this complaint are different and hence the complainant cannot rely upon the above referred judgement to substantiate his claim.  The complainant further submits that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays the complaint may be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite parties

    as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the

    complaint.  If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A4 are marked on his side and written arguments.  The opposite parties filed written version, proof affidavit and written arguments.  No documents are marked on the side of opposite parties.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

          The complainant had applied for certified copies of documents of Crl. O.P. No.2183/2018 by affixing Rs.5/- court fee and also ready to pay any additional charges.  The complainant claims that he is a consumer since he paid Rs.5/- by way of court stamp and issuing copy of documents is an administrative duty.  The complainant states that receipt was not issued for court fee and it is a deficiency in service.  The complainant further states that 1st opposite party had returned his application stating that the complainant had submit xerox copies to court and it contains documents from various departments which cannot be certified as per AS Rules and hence CA returned.  The complainant claims that as per Hon’ble Madras High Court Division Bench judgement in WP No.28202/2012,the complainant is entitled to get the certified copies of all the documents filed in Appellate side based on the CD application.  The complainant states that refusal to provide copies of certified documents to the petitioner itself is against the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 14 and 21 of Constitution. The complainant had sent legal notice to all the opposite parties and there was no response which show the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parities and due to this the complainant had undergone mental agony and hardship and for this he claims a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties.

5.  The opposite parties deny all the averments in the complainant except those are specifically admitted.  The complainant had filed CD application for certified documents in Crl. O.P. No.2183 of 2018 by affixing Rs.5/- court fee.  The opposite parties submits that as per existing practice, the assignment of C.D.SR.No. itself is the proof of payment.  The opposite parties had returned the copy application for the reason that only xerox copies from various departments were filed by the complainant and certified copies of documents cannot be given without verification of the originals or by an officer who is in possession of originals.  The opposite parties claims that the facts of judgement in WP No.28202/2012 which is relied upon by the complainant is different from the facts of this complaint and hence the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

6.  The complainant had applied copy application for certified copies of documents in Crl.O.P. No.2183/2018 by affixing Rs.5/- court fee stamp is an undisputed fact.  The copy of the application filed by the complainant is marked as Ex.A1.  The complainant claims that he had paid a sum of Rs.5/- as court fee stamp and hence claims as a consumer. The complainant has relied upon the order of NDCRC in RP No.2135/2000 dated 08.07.2000 which is marked as Ex. A4.  The opposite parties had also not disputed the fact that the complainant is a consumer. Hence the complainant is a consumer.

          7.  The complainant claims that he had paid Rs.5/- as court fee and alleged that the opposite parties have not issued any receipt for that, and it is a deficiency in service.  On the other hand, the opposites parties claims that as per existing practice, the CD application submitted by complainant was numbered and assigned as C.D.SR.No.5660 of 2018 and further states that assignment of CD SR No. itself is the proof of payment.  The C.D. SR No. entries made in the relevant register is the evidence of payment.  The opposite parties have accepted the CD application and made entries in the relevant register as per the existing practice.  Hence, in the absence of any documentary proof by both parties regarding the issue of receipt for court fee stamp and further the opposite parties have not disputed the affixing of court fee, this commission is of the considered view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not issuing receipt for affixing Rs.5/- as Court Fees Stamp as alleged by the complainant.

8.  The complainant alleged that his Copy application was returned on 16.03.2018 with an endorsement “typeset contains xerox copies. Hence CA returned”.  “Type set contains copies of documents from various department.  Hence copies cannot be certified as per AS Rules”.  According to complainant the High Court of Madras Appellate Side Rules 1965 Order 12 Rule 1,2 and 3:

“Rule 1: Nothing in these rules shall entitle a person to a copy of (1) Judges’ notes or minutes, (2) Correspondence not strictly judicial and (3) Confidential correspondence.

Rule 2: Any party to a proceedings shall be entitled to obtain copies of judgements, decrees or orders made or of any documents filed or exhibited in such proceedings on payment of charges in the manner of prescribed under these rules.

Rule 3: Any person who is not a party to a proceeding, requiring copies of judgements, decrees or orders made or of any documents filed or exhibited in such proceeding, may apply to Court for grant of such copies by a duly stamped petition.”.

9.  Hence refusing to provide certified copies of documents is against the rules prescribed stated supra and against the fundamental rights as enumerated in Article 14 and 21 of Constitution.  The complainant relied upon the judgement by Hon’ble justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Hon. Justice Venugopal,Division bench of Hon. Madras High Court in WP No.28202/2012 and as per that complainant is entitled to get the certified copies of all the documents filed in Appellate side based on the CD application.

10.  On the other hand, the opposite parties claims that a certified copy can be given only by an officer if he/she is in possession of the original documents.  A certified copy of a document denotes that it is a true copy of that document, hence in the typed set of papers filed by the complainant in Crl. O.P. No.2183 of 2018, the authenticity of the documents could not be confirmed as the complainant had filed only xerox copies of the documents.  Therefore, without verification or possession of such original documents, certified copies cannot be issued as per Appellate Side Rules.  The opposite parties claims that the facts of the judgement in WP No.28202 of 2012 is different from the present case and hence the complainant cannot rely upon the said judgement to substantiate his claim.  The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP No.28202 of 2012 held as follow :

“As and when the 1^st respondent/petitioner files necessary copy application to obtain the copies of the petition and affidavit in WP No.11597/1988 and 12518/1994, typed set of papers and the certified copies of the orders dated 04.07.2001 and 16.08.1998 in WP No.11597/1988 and 12518/1994 etc. before the C.D. Section of the Registry of this court in terms and Rules of the High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965, together with payment of necessary charges then to prevent an aberration of justice, we direct the Registrar General of this Court (Petitioner in the Writ Petition) to supply of copies sought for by the 1^st respondent /petitioner by adhering to the Rules, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.

The complainant had filed only xerox copies of documents in typeset in Crl. O.P. No. 2183 of 2018 and the typeset contain documents from various department.   As per Ex.A1, the complainant had applied for certified copies of documents i.e. ‘Typed set of papers filed by the petitioner’.  Whereas in the judgement in WP No.28202/2012 clearly stated that typed set of papers and not as certified copy of typed set of papers and by adhering to the Rules.  Therefore, opposite parties cannot give certified copies of documents without verifying the authenticity of documents and hence it is found that the opposite parties were justified in returning the copy application filed by the complainant as per rules and the same will not amount to deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

11. Point. No.2:-

Based on finding given Point no.1 there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation  for deficiency in service or for alleged mental agony as claimed in the complaint and hence the complaint is dismissed. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

               In the result, the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated by the Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18^th day of  October 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	14.03.2018	Copy of copy application.
Ex.A2	20.03.2018 & 21.03.2018	Legal notice.
Ex.A3		Track consignments.
Ex.A4		Order of NCDRC in R.P.No.2135/2000, Dated:08.07.2002

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                                -NIL-

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT