Haryana

Panchkula

CC/374/2022

MANISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF P.S - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

22 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	374 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	06.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	22.12.2022

                                                                           

 

Manish Kumar s/o Som Nath Banger, H.No.2, Ganesh Vihar, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

 

                                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

 

 

The Superintendent of (P.S.) Branch, O/o Directorate of Secondary Education, Shiksha Sadan, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                   ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35  OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                        Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.          

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

 

1.             Today, the complaint is fixed for consideration on its admissibility. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant had filed an application in the office of Superintendent O/o Directorate of Secondary Education, Shiksha Sadan, Sector-5, Panchkula i.e. Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as OP) seeking the certified copies of the official record under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The copy of the said application is Annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-1, perusal of which reveals that the complainant had filed a complaint vide email dated 02.09.2022 to the Director of Secondary Education of Panchkula against the Sky School, Sector-21, Panchkula. The complainant had sought the certified copy of the action taken report qua the said complaint with day to day proceedings. Further, the complainant, as per Annexure C-11, had sought the meeting records from the year 2018 till date regarding the School Safety Policy of Haryana(State Policy on Safety Measures). Further, vide para no.3 of the said application dated 12.12.2022, the complainant had sought the inspection report mentioning the size of rooms, veranda, stairs, ramp and play ground along with videography and photography of the same and CD  containing the recording of inspection for 9^th  & 10^th classes.  The fee of Rs.50/- through Indian postal order dated 12.10.2022 has already been sent. It is alleged that the OP had failed to provide the certified copies of the documents as sought by the complainant on timely basis despite the multiple visits made by him to the office of the OP. It is alleged that the OP has failed to provide the desired copies despite paying the urgent fee and sending of email dated 17.11.2022 by him. It is alleged that the conduct of the OP is grossly unprofessional, which has caused the unnecessary metal harassment and stress to the complainant. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             In support of his contentions, the complainant while filing the complaint has annexed some documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 with the complaint. In addition to above, the complainant has also placed on record the photography of relevant pages of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, wherein provisions contained in Section 72 to 78 have been given. The said pages are assigned the numbers as Annexures C-5 & C-6. Further, the copy of complaint sent to Additional Chief Secretary Education, Government of Haryana Chandigarh by the complainant vide email dated 30.07.2021 followed by reminder sent through email dated 02.07.2022 have also been placed on record, which are assigned the numbers as Annexures C-7  & C-8.

3.             We have heard the complainant and gone through the record carefully and minutely.

4.             During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that the complainant falls under the category of consumer and thus, he is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission in connection with the redressal of his grievance as mentioned in the complaint. It is contended that the OP has failed to furnish the certified copies of the record as sought by him under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vide his application dated 12.10.2022 followed by reminder sent through email dated 17.11.2022 and thus, it is prayed that the OP is liable to compensate him (complainant) on account of causing mental harassment etc. due to deficiencies on his part.

                Reliance has been placed on the following case laws:- 

1.     Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone Vs. Superintendent, Civil Court,    order dated 08.07.2002 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission as reported in I(2008) CPJ 427 NC. 
2.      Dr.Chandrakant Vitthal Sawant Vs. Shri L.R.Pilankar & Anr. decided on 23.07.2013 in Revision Petition no.2273 of 2012 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

5.            A complaint, before it is admitted for adjudication, is required to qualify, inter alia, various parameters, which may be enumerated as below:-

1. That the complainant falls under the category of a consumer and that there exist a consumer dispute.
2. That the complaint has been instituted within the period of limitation as required under Section 69(1) of CP Act,2019.
3. That the relief claimed do not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
4. That this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

6.                The foremost question to be looked into by us is whether the complainant falls under the category of consumer as defined vide Section 2(7) of the C.P.Act, 2019. In this regard, Section 2(6), 2(7) & 2(42) of the CP Act are significant and thus the same are discussed as under:-

          Section 2(6) CP Act, 2019 is defined as under:-

          Section 2(6) “complaint” means any allegation in writing, made by a    complainant for obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act, that-

1.      An unfair contract or unfair trade practice  or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider;
2.      The goods bought by him  or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects;
3.      The services hired or availed  of or agreed  to be hired  or availed of by him suffer from any deficiency;
4.      A trader or a service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price.
5.      The goods, which are hazardous to life and safety when used,  are being offered  for sale to the public.
6.      The services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety  of the public  when used, are being offered  by a person who provides any service and who knows  it to be injurious  to life and safety.
7.      A claim for product liability action lies, against the product manufacturer, product seller or product service provider, as the case may be.

7.              Evidently, the complainant has not alleged the adoption of unfair contract or unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice by the OP. Further, it is also not the case of the complainant that the goods purchased by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects. As per complainant, he has sought the certified copies of certain record under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act from the OP, therefore, the case of the complainant is not covered under any of the above sub clauses of Section 2(6), of CP Act except clause(iii) of Section 2(6), which provides that the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired suffer from any deficiencies.

                 The issue pertaining to the hiring of services by the complainant in lieu of consideration is being discussed hereinafter in the light of definition of “consumer” as given in Section 2(7) CP Act. 

8.             Now, we advert to the definition of consumer which is defined in Section 2(7) of CP Act, 2019 as under:-

     Section 2(7) “consumer” means any person who-

1.      Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment  and includes  any user of such goods other than the person who buyers such goods for consideration  paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such  use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2.      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 includes 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 definition of consumer is given in two parts. The first part of definition deals with a person, who buys any goods for consideration. In the present case, the complainant has sought the certified copy of the record under Section 76 of the Evidence Act from the OP. The certified copy as sought by the complainant cannot be termed as commodity because the same can neither be sold for money nor purchased by money. Therefore, the complainant does not qualify the status of consumer under first part of the definition of consumer.                 The other part of the definition deals with the hiring or availing of any service for consideration from the service provider. In the present case, the complainant has sought the certified copy of certain record under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act from the O/o Director General Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkula, who is the supervising and controlling authority over all the educational institutions providing education up to +12 standard across the state of Haryana. The position and status of the Director General, Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkula is not akin to the Department or/public sector undertaking like Transport Department or the Housing Board Department or HSVP etc. It is pertinent to mention here that the transport Department Haryana is engaged in providing transport facilities to the public at large and the housing board is engaged in providing housing facilities to the general public. Similarly, the Tourism Corporation is engaged in providing hotel related services to the general public. In contrast, the Director General, Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkula is purely engaged in controlling and supervising the educational institutions upto +12 standard, who imparts education to the students. As such, the O/o Director General Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkula cannot be classified, by any stretch of imagination, as a service provider.

10.            Coming to the facts of the present case, it is found that the complainant has sent a postal order amounting to Rs.50/- to the Superintendent of (P.S.)Branch, O/o Directorate of Secondary Education, Shiksha Sadan, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana seeking the certified copy of certain documents under Section 76 of Evidence Act.  The complainant has not shown any copying rules, applicable in the matter, of the Department, wherein the legal fee and the period, during which the copy has to be supplied, is prescribed. In the absence of any copying rules, we are clueless as to the person, who are entitled to seek the certified copy of record from the Department.

11.            From the discussion made above, it is evident that the OP is excluded from the category of service provider and further, the prayer made by the complainant seeking the certified copy of record under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 falls beyond the category of service as defined in the CP Act. Therefore, the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer and thus, is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission under the CP Act. The case laws relied upon by the complainant are of no help to his case being distinguishable on facts and law. In the cited case, i.e. Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone Vs. Superintendent, Civil Court, order dated 08.07.2002 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission as reported in I(2008) CPJ 427 NC.,  the complainant had sought the certified copy of a judgment on urgent basis by paying a prescribed fee under the relevant copying rules. In the second cited case i.e. Dr.Chandrakant Vitthal Sawant Vs. Shri L.R.Pilankar & Anr. decided on 23.07.2013 in Revision Petition no.2273 of 2012 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, the complainant had sought the demarcation report by  paying a prescribed fee under the relevant rules framed by the concerned Department. As discussed above, no copying rules of the Department entitling the complainant to obtain the certified copy on the basis of payment of prescribed fee has been placed on record.  

12.            At this juncture, we deem it proper to highlight that in order to provide an access to the common man qua the records of the public authority, an elaborate mechanism was devised by the Government of India with the enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005. Needless to mention here that appellate authority at the department level and the appellate authority at the state and central Government level have already been functioning as per the provisions of the Right to Information, Act, 2005. Undoubtedly, the complainant can easily seek the desired documents from the concerned department by paying a prescribed fee as per procedure and guidelines applicable in the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005.

13.            Apart from above, the Right to Service Act, 2014 was enacted in Haryana wherein the detailed provisions have been made qua the disposal of Governmental work within a prescribed time. The time limit has been made applicable qua numerous notified services.

14.            From above discussion, it is evident that an adequate redressal mechanism exits for the redressal of the grievances of the common man. It is not the case of the complainant that he had approached the other competent authority seeking the redressal of his grievances but failed to get the relief.

15.            In the back drop of above narrated facts, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable; hence, the same is ordered to be dismissed in limini with liberty to the complainant to approach the competent authority under Right to information Act, 2005 or Right to Service Act, 2014 or any Tribunal/Court, if he is so advised. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced on:22.12.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

              Member                       Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                       (Satpal)

                                           President