Tek Sharan Sharma filed a consumer case on 23 Sep 2008 against Suwidha Centre in the Kapurthala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/82 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Punjab
Kapurthala
CC/08/82
Tek Sharan Sharma - Complainant(s)
Versus
Suwidha Centre - Opp.Party(s)
Sh. Baljit Singh Bajwa Adv.
23 Sep 2008
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA Building No. b-XVII-23, 1st Floor, fatch Bazar, Opp. Old Hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/82
Tek Sharan Sharma
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Suwidha Centre Surinder pal Singh panesar. Harinder kaur
1. Suwidha Centre2. Surinder pal Singh panesar. 3. Harinder kaur
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Sh. Baljit Singh Bajwa Adv.
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
XX XX XX
" Supply of certified copy of order of the Court
Courts is not a sovereign function. It does not
part take the character of sovereign function. The
applicant who applied for certified copy of a
judicial order, who deposits the fee for obtaining
such a copy is a "consumer" within the meaning
of the Act and proceedings of such application
and the preparation and delivery of the copy
on consideration of the copy charging fee by the
concerned staff attached to the Court would be a
"service" within the meaning of the Act "
XX XX XX
From the perusal of evidence on the record, we find admission of opposite parties that complainant moved an application to Suwidha Centre for issuance of certified copy of birth certificate on deposit of Rs.12/- as Govt. fee and Rs.60/- as facilitation charges in consideration vide Ex.C10 and tentative delivery date of certificate was given as 2/5/08. There is further admission of the opposite parties that said certificate was not prepared by that date and again date was extended to 6/5/08 and later on next tentative date was given as 20/5/08 as shown on the back of the receipt Ex.C1. There is oral version in para-4 of the written statement filed by the opposite party that complainant was informed verbally to collect the birth certificate and that on 12/5/08, he was again requested to receive the same but he again refused to receive the same.. This fact is also admitted in para-7 of the affidavit Ex.R1 of Project Manager that birth certificate was received from the office of Registrar, Births and Deaths, Kapurthala on 6/5/08. Finding refusal of the complainant to receive the document, a letter dated 19/5/2008 was also issued to the complainant to collect the birth certificate and same was sent through Peon on 22/5/08 which he again refused to receive. It is, therefore, clearly established from the record that requisite birth certificate was not ready on 2/5/08 on tentative delivery date and some more time was expected to be spent in searching location and preparation of birth certificate on account of which another date 6/5/08 was given on the receipt Ex.C1 . We also find that birth certificate was again not ready on the scheduled date 6/5/08 and position was explained by opposite party No.3 to the complainant as mentioned in para-4 of the written statement though opposite party No.2 attempted to wash out its deficiency in service by stating in para-7 of his affidavit Ex.R1 that birth certificate was received from the office of Registrar, Births & Deaths on 6/5/08 in afternoon. We do not rule out possibility of issuing letter dated 19/5/08 by the Project Manager, Suwidha Centre, Kapurthala to the complainant for collection of birth certificate on or before 5/6/08 and communication was also sent to the complainant vide dak book of peon on 22/5/08. This letter dated 19/5/08 is a sequel of registered notice dated 8/5/08 Ex.C2 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Therefore, on analysis of oral a well as documentary evidence on the record, we are of the opinion that tentative date may imply of future dates for supply of the documents and that is given as 6/5/08 on the receipt Ex.C1. Complainant had to inquire about the delivery of birth certificate from the office of Suwidha Centre but again it was postponed to 20/5/08 and letter dated 19/5/08 was sent to the complainant for taking delivery of birth certificate from which it can be reasonably inferred that birth certificate was not prepared by the concerned official of the office of Registrar, Births and Deaths before that date. Therefore, complainant was put to certain amount of inconvenience and physical harassment on account of lapses and deficiency in service on the part of official of the office of registrar, Births and Deaths on account of which Suwidha Centre, Kapurthala could not honour its its committment for delivery ofbirth certificate to the complainant. During the course of arguments, Project Manager opposite party No.2 stated that Suwidha Centre is still ready to deliver the birth certificate to the complainant.
In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to deliver the birth certificate to the complainant within a week from the receipt of copy of this order and further award amount of Rs.2000/- as monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service and dereliction of duty of the official of office of Registrar, Births and Deaths with further amount of Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation payable by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. Opposite parties shall recover the abovesaid amount of award from the derelict in the office of Registrar, Births and Deaths .
Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced : (Gulshan Prashar) (Shashi Narang ) ( A.K. Sharma )
23.9.2008 Members President