Date of filing:- 02/08/2014.
Date of Order:- 15/09/2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complainant No. 18 of 2014.
Sri Manbodha Mishra S/o- Biranchi Mishra, aged about 53(fifty three) years, Occupation- Advocate, R/o- Barpali (Ward No.10), P.S./Tah- Barpali, Dist- Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
The Tahasildar, Barpali, P.o./Via- Barpali, Dist. Barpali
..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri. B. Dash Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri M.P. Gartia, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Bargarh.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... I/c President.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 15/09/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by the Sri P.K.Dash, Member.
The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint is here under.
The Complainant being an advocate by profession, as per the instruction of his clients applied certified copies of lease case bearing Nos. 02/05, 81/06, 249/06, 02/01, 71/05, 367/05, 248/06, 01/05, 363/05, 252/06, 79/01, 03/01, 250/06, 254/06, 360/05 and 81/06 before the Tahasildar, Barpali i.e. The Opposite Party in this Complaint. Those certified copies were urgently necessary to prefer appeal against them before the appellate authority as his clients by virtue of these lease were possessing some govt. lands since the time of their fore-father and without evicting them with due course of law from their possessions, the Tahasildar, Barpali has alloted lease Patta to some other villagers. The Complainant stated that he has affixed court fee of worth Rs.3(three) in each application and has also obtained receipts there of bearing No.495 to 511.
The Complainant contends that the fresh lease holders with evil intention assembled together to attack his clients when they were harvesting their paddy crops over the property involved in the certified copies. Further one Prasanna Bag lodged F.I.R. against his clients and as they could not show any legal documents in their favour to the police, they (the clients of the Complainant) were arrested, detained in Jail custody and prosecuted in the court of JMFC, Barpali vide G.R. Case No. 63/2014 and after their release from Jail custody, again they requested the Opposite Party to supply those certified copies and as the Opposite Party i.e. Tahasildar Barpali did not supply certified copies to the the clients of the Complainant, they informed the Opposite Party by writing on Dt.14/07/2014 to follow legal course against him ( the Opposite Party) and as the Opposite Party inspite of the notice by the Complainant's clients did not address their grievances, filed Complaint before the Hon'ble Forum.
Further the Complaint contend that the Tahasildar Barpali i.e. the Opposite Party is paid by the Govt. to discharge various governmental functions and on payment of fees he is to render service by granting certified copies of records in his custody and as the Opposite Party did not supply the certified copies, the Complainant could not file appeal before the appellate authority and so also his clients faced criminal prosecution in G.R. Case No.63/2014, as they could not show any documents relating to their right over the property in challenge. Further the Complainant suffered harassment and mental tension for non supply of the certified copies by the Opposite Party which is a deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party to the Complainant under the provision. The Complainant narrating his Complaint detail has filed one notes of written argument.
The Complainant seeks the redressal of the Forum to direct the Opposite Party to supply certified copies involved in this dispute within some fixed time and to compensate Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only for his professional loss, Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for harassment, mental tension, pecuniary loss in facing criminal prosecution in G.R. Case No.63/2014 by his clients and also the litigation cost as the court deemed fit to the Complainant.
The Complainant in support of his contentions relies on the Xerox copies of the following documents.
Copy Application serial No.495 to 511 Dt.03/04/2014 issued by the Opposite Party.
Certified copy of GR Case No.63/2014 of the court of the JMFC, Barpali.
Representation send by his clients to the Opposite Party for following legal course.
Postal receipt.
Being noticed the Opposite Party appeared through the legal counsel and filed his version denying all the allegations levelled against him in the Complaint.
The OP in its version contends that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 as the Complainant has not paid any consideration so also not sustained any professional loss and financial loss by his clients for which no harassment, mental tension contributed by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and the Complainant is not a consumer as there is no rendering of deficiency in service by the Opposite Party.
Further the Opposite Party contends that the Complainant has intentionally applied copies with inappropriate form i.e. application for computerized service but the copies applied for are entitled under manual system and the Complainant ought to have applied for copies in the form No. 79 under rule 335(1) of ORM 1964. The copy application from Sl. No. 495 to 511 have been kept unattended by the Bench Clerk, Lease section, Tahasil Office, Barpali and in his show cause stated that the case records are of the year 2001, 2005 and 2006 which could not be readily traceable on thorough search and soon after receipt of the case records, certified copies would be supplied as per law.
Further the Opposite Party in his version contends that as the Complainant has not applied for certified copy of Lease Case No.71/05 and 79/01 has misguided the Forum partially putting wrong allegation against a govt. official, hence the Complainant liable for punishment and the Dist. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum should refers the case to the proper court of law. Further stated that the Complainant is the applicant for the copy application filed before the Tahasildar, Barpali as well as the Complainant in the consumer dispute case. His clients have not been represented in this case, hence there is no merit at all in this case.
Further the Opposite Party states that a huge number of bundles of case records of different nature stake in a corner of Record Room were completely destroyed by the white ants and in the process the case records needed for granting certified copies could have been destroyed by the white ants. Further ascertained that certified copy would be supplied as soon as the case record found out as per provision of law.
The Opposite Party in his version again states that the person responsible for granting certified copy is the Officer-in-Charge, Record Room, Barpali not the Tahasildar, Barpali. Further more state that in order to obtain certified copy the complainant is proposed to pay stamp duty prescribed under the stamp Act and the stamp duty payable on the application for certified copy is the purpose of augmentation of revenue of the state and in exchange no service can be demanded. The Opposite Party describing all about his case has filed one memo of argument.
The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the Complaint.
The Opposite Party to probe his version has filed xerox copies of the following documents.
Application for computerized services at Tahasil (Annexure-A) (17 sheets).
Letter of explanation Dt.05/09/2014 by the Court Amin, Record Room, Barpali, Tahasil to the Tahasildar, Barpali (Annexure-B)(1 sheet).
Show cause Dt.17/09/14 by the Senior Asst. Barpali, Tahasil (Annexure-C)(1 sheet).
Having gone through the entire case record, pleadings of the parties, documents annexed to the case record, heard argument from both the parties, the issues arise for determination are as follows :-
Whether the applications for certified copy applied for by the Complainant are appropriate as per law.
Whether the court fee affixed on the copy application forms for applying certified copy is a “Consideration” and the Complainant becomes a consumer U/S 2(I)(d)(II) and the Opposite Party is liable for deficiency in service U/S 2(I)(O) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Answering Issue No.1(one).
As per provision of Rule 335(I) of Orissa Revenue Manual 1964, the application for certified copy must be applied in form No.79 affixing court fee of Rs.6/-(Rupees six)only along with required stamp and folios as per Stamp Act 1899. The Complainant in the instant case has applied in computerized application form affixing court fee of worth Rs.3/-(Rupees three)only in each application without any stamp duty and folios which is contravention of Revenue law and are not appropriate and proper as per provision of law.
Answering Issue No.2(two).
The court fee affixed on the copy application forms for applying certified copy of any document is fixed revenue payable to the govt. for its sovereign duty and is not a “Consideration” as per the provision U/S 2(I)(d)(II) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Complainant in the instant case has not also paid the users fees for making certified copy which could have been a consideration money and the Complainant could have been a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Opposite Party i.e. The Tahasildar Barpali is not liable for any deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of sec 2(I)(O) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Owing to the provision of Law contained in ORM 1964 and Consumer Protection Act 1986 and also the facts and evidence available in the case record, the forum dismissed the Complaint without any cost.
Complaint disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
( Smt.Anjali Behera )
M e m b e r
I/C President.
