Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This is an Appeal filed by one Motilal Jhalani against the order dated 02-12-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in C.C. No. 285/2015 whereof the complaint has been dismissed with cost.

In short, case of the Complainant is that as per requirement of the employer of his son, birth certificate of his son needed to be furnished before the said employer.  Accordingly, the Complainant applied before the OP for obtaining the requisite birth certificate after complying with due formalities.  It is alleged that the Record Section of the concerned department of the OP put their remark on the Application Form for Birth Certificate of his son that 14/7/79 to 04/11/79 Register Book damaged without properly searching the concerned record.  He was, allegedly, further informed by the concerned official of the OP that since the concerned book got damaged, the Birth Certificate could not be issued.  Since such remark of the concerned official of the OP put at stake the very prospect of his son’s career, the Complainant became very nervous and he ran from pillar to post to obtain the crucial document braving his advanced age.  Although the Birth Certificate was subsequently issued after great effort, taking umbrage at the negligent attitude of the officials of the OP, the complaint was filed.

OP contested the case by filing WV whereby it denied all the material allegation of the complaint.  It is stated that Birth Register Book for the period from 14-07-1979 to 04-11-1979 was in severely damaged condition and for this reason, necessary order was issued by the higher authorities of the OP directing the concerned department not to issue any certificate for the said period until and unless the said register book got repaired.  However, considering the old age of the Complainant, the OP took the case specially and copy of birth certificate was issued within three working days by virtue of special order of the concerned Officer of the OP. 

Decision with reasons

Appellant contested the case in person and Respondent was represented through its Ld. Advocate.   Heard both sides in full and perused the material on record.

It is the case of the Respondent that the concerned Birth Register Book for the period 14-07-1979 to 04-11-1979 got damaged for which higher authority of the Respondent debarred the concerned department from issuing any Birth Certificate for the concerned period till the relevant register was restored.  However, considering the old age of the Appellant, special order was passed by the concerned Officer of the Respondent.

Such justification being put forth by the Respondent crumbles down in the face of Respondent’s candid admission in reply (dated 18-01-2016) to an RTI enquiry of the Appellant that there was no existence of any such order at all as articulated by the Respondent in its WV and Affidavit-in-Evidence.  It goes to show that the Respondent maliciously made false statement on oath before the Ld. District Forum to manipulate the proceedings under the complaint case.  I am of opinion that perpetrator of such unscrupulous practice cannot go scot free.

In Padmawati and Ors v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, 154 (2008) DLT 411, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court  noted as under:

“6. The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds that using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such litigants which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the Courts. One of the aim of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all cases should be the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person.‖ xxxxxx 9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for over-flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.‖ The Hon’ble Court imposed costs of `15.1 lakhs.

Against this, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No 29197/2008 was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On 19.03.2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order:

“We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We find no ground to interfere with the well-considered judgment passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.‖ 6.4. I agree with the findings by the learned Judge in Padmawati's case (supra) and I would wish to add a few words. There is another feature which has been observed and it is of unscrupulous persons filing false claims or defences with a view that the other person would get tired and would then agree to compromise with him by giving up some right or paying some money. If the other party is not able to continue contesting the case or the Court by reason of falsehood falls into an error, the wrong succeeds. Many times, the other party compromises, or at other times, he may continue to fight it out. But as far as the party in the wrong is concerned, as this Court noted in Padmawati's case (supra), even if these litigants ultimately lose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh”.

Further, although the Respondent claimed that the concerned Register was severally damaged, no tangible proof was furnished either before the Ld. District Forum or before us.  If the conduct of Respondent is put into proper perspective, there is no reason to trust the statement of the Respondent in this regard too, particularly in absence of cogent proof from its side. 

If the Respondent is incapable of keeping even 35 year old record in its proper shape, no doubt, that is a sad commentary on its Management.  Further, on account of its carelessness, a consumer cannot be made to suffer. In this case, as I find, the career prospect of the son of the Appellant was in the brink of ruin, thanks to the insensitive/apathetic attitude of the concerned official, who visibly did not think twice to make false statement in black & white.  This is how officials of the Respondent treat common man.  The fact that the Birth Certificate was ultimately issued after three days does not diminish the fact that the Appellant was put under terrific mental pressure/strain/anxiety.  Is this what a consumer deserves from the Corporation!  

As I find, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint without appreciating the injury inflicted upon the Appellant by some vested interests. What is worse, instead of redressing a genuine complaint, the Ld. District Forum added salt to the injury of the Appellant by directing him to pay penal cost amounting to Rs. 2,500/-.  I find no qualms overruling such erroneous order.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent with cost Rs. 10,000/-.  Respondent is directed to pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Appellant within 40 days hence, i.d., simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall accrue w.e.f. 29-06-2015 till full and final payment is made.