DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Present: 1.Shri Raghunath kar, President
2.Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Dated the 18th day of September,2018
C.D.Case No.05 of 2018
Sri Budhadev Rout
S/O Padmanava @ Padma Lochan Rout
At- Talapada, Po- Dhamnagar Block Colony.
Ps- Dhamnagar,District: Bhadrak
…………………………….. Complainant
(Versus)
01-The Tahasildar, Dhamnagar,
Bhadrak.
02- The Additional Tahasildar, Dhamnagar Tahasil
At/Po- Dhamnagar. District- Bhadrak
…………………………………Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri Jagannath Senapati ,Advocate
For the Opp.Parties : Debajyoti Das , Advocate.
Date of Hearing: 08.05.2018.
Date of Order : 18.09.2018
O R D E R
SRI Raghunath Kar,PRESIDENT:
Deficiency in service rendered by the O.Ps due to non-supply of orders of Misc Case No. 74/2017 is the grievance of the petitioner-consumer.
Brief case of the complainant is that the complainant filed Misc Case No. 62/1987 and 49/1987 in respect of the following Plots
Plot No.53 - A.0.20 decimals
Plot No.1248 - A.0.68 decimals
under Khata No.754/62 of Talapada Mouza to which the complainant had acquired those properties vide Misc case No. 62/1987 in Order dt. 29.04.1990 and Misc Case No. 49/1987 in Order dt. 02.02.1988. The Khatian of the said properties were prepared in the name of the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner is paying rent every year . After possessing ownership Complainant/ petitioner had sold one plot No. 53 A0 20 Dec to one Babaji Behera & Sri Behera had obtained the mutation R.O.R No. 745/659 and the rest plot No. 1248 AO.68 dec was within one enclosure of the petitioner since the date of the acqure. That on 25.12.2017 the complainant obtained one certified copy of the aforesaid plot No. 1248 of Khata 754/62 where he found that the plot No.1248 is not in the Khata No. 754/62 and the said property has been transferred to Khata No. 807 vide one Order dt. 28.10.2017 in Misc Case No. 74/17. As such petitioner/complainant had applied for the certified copy of the Said Misc Case No. 74/17 i;e the final Order , R.I Reports, All Notices ,proclamations and other documents from O.Ps. Accordingly he has paid Rs. 50/- vide Money receipt No. 3463686 dt. 01.01.2018 and Rs. 12 /- in respect of Court Fee for this purpose . But no certified copies have been supplied to the complainant as yet.
Being aggrieved by the non-supply of certified copies of the above cases the complainant has filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.50,000/- for compensation towards mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/-.
O.Ps resisted the complaint and contested the case that this complaint is neither maintainable in the law nor in facts. It is submitted that the complainant had made application on 1.1.2018 before the O.Ps for certified copies. After receipt of the application, O.Ps have sent the Order of Misc Case No. 74/17 to the Sub-Collector Bhadrak for conformation. As record was not finalized the O.Ps are unable to supply certified copies as per the application of the complainant. The application of complainant is under process & the complainants present case is pre-matured in view of pending approval of the order dt. 24.10.2017 in Misc case No. 74/17. So discharge of duty of the O.Ps is not negligence in service of willful delay. Hence they have prayed to dismiss the case .
In view of the pleadings of both the parties we find that complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps due to non-supply of certified copies of the Misc case No. 74/17 in which he aforesaid applied for. Even after appearance of the Tahasildar, Dhamnagar on 15.02.2018 they have remained silent about supply of the same to complainant. which is presumed to be intentional. The plea taken by the O.Ps to obtain order from Sub- Collector Bhadrak is their inter departmental affairs and the said plea is not sustainable.
The consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") was enacted inter-alia to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers. The applicability of the said act in the instant case is not in dispute. The dispute between the parties is admittedly 'the Consumer Dispute' within the meaning of Section-2(e) of the act. It is further not been disputed that there has been a "Deficiency of service". The deficiency has been defined in section 2 (g) of the act:
"Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been under-taken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service".
In Gaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh reported in 2004(5) SCC 65, the Hon'ble apex court opined that under the law, the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in case of service rendered by statutory and public authorities, holding:
"...The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law...."
However, relying on a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission, reported in in 2002(3) CPR-160 (NC) we are inclined to hold that the complainant is a consumer and non-supply of certified copies to the complainant by the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service.
In view of our above observation we find deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and direct them to supply certified copy of all the orders inviting requisites to be filed within a month of receipt of this order. The O.Ps are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/-, payable to the complainant within a month of receipt of this order.
Thus the case is allowed without compensation but with cost.
