J U D G M E N T
Smt Sarita Tripathy , Member - This is a complaint under section 12 of C.P Act filed by the complainant praying for Rs.20,000 to-wards compensation and litigation cost for non supply of certified copy.
The case of complaint in short is that the complainant applied for certified copy of some documents on 30.9.2014 before the OP Tahasildar, Daspalla. After getting the application the OP registered the said application vide Regd. No.830 dated 30.9.2013. After getting the application the OP did not supply any certified copy to the complainant in spite of serial visit of him till filling of the case.
The OP has filed the written version for challenging maintainability of the complaint. The OP Tahasildar , Daspalla, Prasanta Kumar Chhotray gave para wise comments in his written version stating that the complainant has filed the application for supply of certified copy of documents which relates to the year 2005 of one encroachment case . The complainant has received the certified copy on 4.6.2014 but filed C.C. Case No.40/2014 to intentionally harass and default the Tahasildar . The OP has completely denied any deficiency of service on his part.
The complainant has filed following documents
(1) Copy of counter foil of the receipt of application for certified copy of
encroachment case No. 342/2005 and 343/2005. (2) One abscission in case No.131 of 1990 - Chintamani Mishra vs Tahasildar Khanadapara and others C.D No.131 of 1990 decided on 19th April, 1991.
The OP filed his written version and other documents as per list.
Points for determination;
1. Whether OP has comitted any deficiency in service ?
2. Whether complainant is entitle for any compensation ?
Ans to point No.1 : The complainant applied for supply of certified copy of encroachment case No.342/2005 and 343/2005 before the Tahasildar Daspalla on 30.9.2014 bearing application No.830 which is accepted by OP in his written version.
The complainant has filed the case on 27.5.2014 before the Forum which is after 9 months of registration of application. Till failing of the case the complainant did not get his certified copy of required documents. After getting notice from the Forum to appear on 20.6.2014 the OP has issued a letter to complainant on 31.5.2014 for readiness of certified copy bearing memo No.5323. The notice was issued on 27.5.14 and certified copy was supplied on 04.6.2014 to the complainant. As per our considered opinion the certified copy is the public document which should be supplied as per the rules provided under Odisha Record Manual 1964, Rule 344 of ORM 1964 says ;
Time limit for furnishing copies and information – The time for supply of information required shall not without the special orders of the Officer in charge to be recorded in writing in each individual case, be later than half an hour before the closing of the office on the 3rd working day after presentation of application the day of presentation being excluded.
In this case non supply of certified copy as per above rule is admitted and supply of the same by the OP after filing of the case without assigning any reason is nothing but deficiency in service.
The complainant has filed a decission of the Odisha State Consumer Redressal Commission vide CD No.131/1990 decided on 19.9.1991, Chintamani Mishra Vrs Tahasildar Khandapara and others where in it is held that non supply of certified copy is deficiency of services and compensation can be awarded. Accordingly the complainant is entitle to compensation which in our opinion of Rs.3000/- and she is also entitled for Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost. Hence it is ordered :
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part against OP No.1 on contest The OP is directed to pay sum of Rs.5000/-to-wards compensation and litigation cost to complainant within two month of this order failing which the complainant shall have right to realise the same as per law.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 05th September, 2014.
