District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 30/2015
Sri Goutam Bhattacharjee
S/o Late Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee
Vill. & PO: Amritakhanda,
Mobile No. 90025 52392
P.O. & P.S.: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
The B.L. & L.R.O.
Balurghat Block
PO: Beltalapark,
PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant ……………… - Shri Samit Bhowmick &
- Shri Benoy Brata Bhowmik
For OP ……………… - Shri Bidyut Kr. Roy
Date of Filing : 15.05.2015
Date of Disposal : 14.09.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 14.09.2015
The case of the complainant is that he filed the case before B.L. & L.R.O. Balurghat Block for correction of his record of rights and the same was dismissed. Against the order an appeal was preferred and the appeal was also dismissed by giving liberty to the complainant to file a petition u/s 50 of W.B.L.R. Act, 1955 for correction of record of rights.
During pendency of the said case after hearing both sides since no judgement was provided, the complainant filed a petition praying for copy of the judgement because of failure on the part of OP to provide copy of judgement the complainant has filed this case u/s 12 of CP Act, 1986, praying for direction upon the OP for providing him with certified copy of the order passed by OP and also prayed for cost of Rs.50,000/-.
The OP contested the case by filing a written version whereby the allegation made by the complainant denied by the OP. It was specifically stated by the OP that the complainant mentioned in the complaint that he wanted to have certified copy of the order sheet in respect of Case No.3527 u/s 50 of W.B.L.R. Act. It was stated by the complainant that the certified copy of the order sheet of any case can be supplied to the applicant only after disposal of the same. Here in this case only reference was made by the Revenue Officer to his Superior authority for seeking instructions and the case record was sent to S.D.L & L.R.O. Balurghat vide office Memo No. 340/BLLRO/Blg dated 24.3.2014 and till filing of the written version no instruction was received from the higher authority by the OP. Apart from the said fact that the OP did not receive any process fees in advance from the complainant for supplying of certified copy because the process fees are only realizable from the applicant subject availability / existence of the case record. The OP only received application fees in terms of court fee as per the government’s order. In view of the said fact that the OP is not service
Contd…P/3
provider as per provision of the CP Act, 1986. The OP in view of such perspective has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Now, the question is :
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the certified copy of the order which is not in existence?
- Whether the OP made deficiency in rendering service in discharging of his duties?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of the said fact.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that complainant filed a case before B.L. & L.R.O. Balurghat Block u/s 50 of W.B.L.R. Act, 1955 and after hearing of the said case the complainant prayed for certified copy of the order / judgement but the same was not provided to the complainant for which the complainant faced harassment and in order to redress his grievance he filed this case.
In order to substantiate the allegation of the complainant that the case is maintainable the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant relied on a decision as reported in 2008 (20 CPR 141 N.C. wherein it was held that the application filed by the complainant for supplying of copy of order passed by Naib Tehsildar in a revenue case was not provided on the ground that relevant case papers were not available in his office. The Hon’ble National Commission gave a direction holding that there was no doubt that the petitioner had been put prolonged harassment and considerable cost in pursuing his request for getting copy of the document from the respondent. The National Commission also awarded cost of Rs.5,000/- upon the collector. On the basis of the said ruling the complainant has prayed for allowing the complaint by awarding compensatory cost.
Contd…P/4
Ld. Lawyer for the OP submits that no judgement or order was passed by the B.L. & L.R.O. Balurghat and therefore question of providing certified copy of the judgement or order does not arise only the case record was sent to S.D.L & L.R.O. seeking his opinion regarding some points involved in the said case as per provision laid down in W.B.L.R. Act. Ld. Lawyer also emphasized that the case is pre-matured one and since the OP is not service provider as alleged as there was no existence of service between the complainant and the OP, therefore, the case is to be dismissed by imposing the cost upon the complainant.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant at earlier filed a complaint before the B.L. & L.R.O. for correction of record of rights and the said case was dismissed. Against order of the dismissal the complainant preferred an appeal before the S.D.L. & L.R.O. and the said appeal was dismissed by giving opportunity to the complainant for taking steps and accordingly u/s 55, the case was filed by the complainant before B.L. & L.R.O. During pendency of the said proceeding the matter was referred to the S.D.L & L.R.O. the entire case record was sent to S.D.L & L.R.O. Balurghat vide office Memo No. 350/BLLRO/Blg dt. 24.3.2014 and from the said office no communication was received by the OP. In view of the said facts and circumstances of the above since no judgement or order was passed by the OP and no fees was taken by the OP for providing certified copy of the judgement or order, therefore, we hold that the OP was not duty bound to provide the copy of the judgement which was not in existence at the relevant point of time since the entire case record is lying before the S.D.L & L.R.O. Balurghat.
The ruling as cited by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant as reported in 2008 (20 CPR 141 (N.C.), we do not find any semblance with the case cited by the Ld. Lawyer with this case being disposed of by us and accordingly we hold that the said ruling is not applicable in this case.
Contd…P/5
Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the OP is not a service provider in strict sense as laid down u/s 12 of CP Act, 1986, therefore, we hold that the case as filed by the complainant is misconceived one the same is to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.30 of 2015 is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(S. N. Chatterjee)
President
I concur,
……Sd/-..……
(S. Ganguli)
Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
