Complainant Balwinder Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to  provide/issue the residence/domicile certificate. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages, harassment suffered by  way of mental tension and agony and litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 12% per annum to him, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainants in brief is that he has applied the residence/domicile certificate of his son namely Manvir Singh on 20.11.2017 with opposite parties and deposited Rs.60/- as fee. He hired the services of the opposite parties and thus, he is consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties assured him to supply the certificate on or before 12.12.2017 as per the recitals mentioned in the receipt dated 20.11.2017. He approached the opposite parties many times but till date the opposite parties have not supplied the same to him. He suffered monitory loss and even mental agony for more than 10 months without any fault. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He also moved an application dated 24.1.2018 and 16.4.2018 to the opposite parties, but all in vain. Hence this complaint.

3.           Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1 alongwith photocopies of other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C-4.

4.         Opposite parities did not opt to put in appearance despite service of notice as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated10.12.2018.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it is made clear that the opposite party received Rs.60/- on 20.11.2017 to make the residence/domicile certificate of Manvir Singh son of the complainant on 20.11.2017 and promised to supply the certificate on or before 12.12.2017 but they did not supply the same till date. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

7.     The complainant in order to prove the entire version has relied upon his affidavit Ex.CW-1, copy of receipt of payment Ex.C-2, which fully proves that the complainant paid Rs.60/- to the opposite parties. In this document at No.11 “date by which service to be provided” is written as 12/12/2017 which is sufficient to prove that the tentative date given by Suvidha Centre is 12.12.2017. Complainant also relied upon Ex.C-3 which is an application written to District Manager Suvidha Centre Gurdaspur regarding the supply of residence/domicile certificate of the son of the complainant. This letter is dated 24.2.2018 which proves that complainant had not received the required domicile certificate till 24.1.2018 whereas the tentative date given by Suvidha Centre was way back on 12.12.2017. Ex.C-4 is an application addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur dated 16.4.2018 wherein again complainant requested for the domicile certificate of his son. These documents clearly proved that complainant felt harassed at the hands of OPs for the non supply of domicile/residence certificate of his son till 16.4.2018. We are of this view that Suviha Centres are opened only to provide a special facility to the general public on payment, so that a person should not get harassed for his day to day work, by moving in different offices.  On the other hand the evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties to contest the case of the complainant nor any person from the opposite parties dared to file any affidavits to rebut the case of the complainant as such the opposite parties impliedly admitted the case of the complainant. The opposite parties were so negligent and acted so arbitrarily that instead of submitting any record or evidence oral or documentary, preferred to become exparte.

8.      From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the opposite parties failed to supply of residence/domicile certificate of Manvir Singh son of the complainant. As such the complainant is entitled to relief claimed as it is fully proved that he has felt harassed both mentally and physically for the deficient services of OPs.

9.      In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the exparte complaint of the complainant. Opposite party no.2 is directed to supply residence/domicile certificate of Manvir Singh to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

10.     Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:                  (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

 July 29, 2019.                         Member                         Presiding Member

 MK