Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/408

Ajay Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Public Authority sub Registrar - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

08 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:408 dated 27.10.2022.                                                         Date of decision: 08.02.2023.

Ajay Sharma R/o. B-33/2184, Bhagwan Dass Colony, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana-141008. Mo. 9815661652.

                                                Versus

The Public Authority Sub-Registrar (East) Transport Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                              ....Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ajay Sharma in person.

For OP                           :         Exparte. 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant applied for certified photocopies of the official record under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872  in order to seek copies of index of all the vasikas registered for the time period 12-14 September 2022 along with attested copies of NOC’s attached with vasikas for which he deposited due fees charged for service of providing certified copies via Indian Postal order No.59F743246, 57F900521, 57F900522, 59F743781, 59F743780 dated 19.09.2022 but the opposite party failed to provide the certified copies of the documents sought by the complainant on timely basis. The complainant stated that he made multiple visits to the office of opposite party but to no avail and in spite of paying additional urgent fees in order to expedite the process of obtaining the aforesaid documents, the opposite party failed to provide any assistance or cooperation required from their end. The complainant further stated that from the inception of applying the certified copies, the opposite party has been showing least interest or concern to the demand of the complainant and have shown casual behavior and lax approach towards the urgent demand of the complainant. However, the opposite party failed to provide the record despite regular visits made by the complainant.  The complainant sent a reminder letter to the opposite party on 28.09.2022 via speed post but in spite of that the opposite party failed to provide the record/service to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unprofessional approach on the part of the opposite party for which the complainant is entitled for compensation on account of mental harassment, stress and irreparable loss. in the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to opposite party to pay suitable compensation  for causing undue mental tension, harassment, agony and deficiency in service along with misc. expenses of Rs.16,000/-.

2.                Notice was sent to the opposite party through registered post on 02.11.2022 but the opposite party did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.01.2023.           

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of application under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex. C2 to Ex. C7 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C8 is the copy of reminder, Ex. C9  is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. C10 is the copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in writ petition (Civil) No.210 of 2012, Ex. C11 and Ex. C12 are the copies of applications dated 04.02.2023 and 01.02.2023 respectively, Ex. C13 is the copy of order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bikaner dated 18.01.2023 in consumer complaint No.123 of 2022, Ex. c14 is the copy of judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2135 of 2000, Ex. C15 is the copy of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ petition No.1194 of 2008 and Criminal Writ petition No.2331 of 2006 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents submitted by the complainant.

5.                The Complainant has contended that he is entitled to the documents as sought from the opposite party in view of Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on payment of legal fee but the opposite party has delayed the matter for long and deliberately did not provide the same. So, the complainant is entitled to seek compensation for non-supply of the documents as prayed for the in the complaint.

6.                Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced as under:-

“Certified copies of public documents:- Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees thereof, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.”

7.                Bare reading of Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it crystal clear that unless a person has a “right to inspect” the document, he has no locus standi to demand a copy from a public officer on payment of legal fees. “Right to inspect” must originate from some law or statue but the complainant could not refer any of the relevant law which bestows him the “right to inspect” the desired public documents.

8.                Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides the definition of consumer. Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is  reproduced as under:-

“Consumer” means any person who:-

(ii)hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and include any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.”

9.                The complainant has neither hired nor availed any service for consideration, paid or promised and as such he does not fall within the definition of “consumer”. By making random payment in a public office in the name of the fee, the complainant cannot claim that he has availed the service for consideration. In fact, the complainant is under legal duty to show that he has followed some rules and regulations which stipulates such payment. Strangely enough, the complainant has not prayed for any direction against OP for issuance of certified copies of documents and just raised a demand of compensation only. In the given facts and circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the complaint in its present form is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

Ajay Sharma Vs Sub Registrar (East) Ludhiana                        CC/22/408

Present:       Complainant Sh. Ajay Sharma in person.

                   OP exparte.

                   The complainant closed his evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C15. He further suffered that due to typographical mistake his father name is not mentioned in the complaint and affidavit but the same is mentioned in Ex. C1.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.