MRS MEENAKHI PADHI, MEMBER … The factual matrix of complaint is that, the complainant had applied for certified copies of entire order sheet and R.I. Report of 1. Misc Case No.2/88, 2. R.M.C. No.1/2011 & 3. R.M.C. No.2/2012 on dt.13.10.2016 by paying urgent court fees Rs.10/- each in prescribed form which was registered as C.A. No.2178, 2179 & 2180 dt.13.10.2016. Despite repeated approaches of complainant the OP.s has not been supplied the same till dt.05.01.2017. Hence the complainant to contend that the OP.s being duty bound has not discharging their duty in time and to which act the complainant inflicted with severe mental agony which cannot be evaluated in terms of money. Hence the complainant craves the leave of this forum and prayed to direct the OP.s to supply the so called certified copies along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and his harassment.
The complainant has filed copy of some annexure as per his list of document and a copy of judgment of Hon’ble National Commission along with supportive affidavit.
2. The OP.No.1 & 2 entered their appearance and filed their counter in the case to contend that, the complainant had applied for certified copy of Misc. Case.No. 2/88, 01/2001 & 2/2012. The certified copy of Misc Case No.02/2012 has already been supplied to him. He further contends that there are different types of Misc. cases in their Tahsil i.e. Certificate, Mines Mineral, Change of classification of land etc, but the complainant had applied just as RMC No.2/88 & 1/2001 without mentioning the types of case. The complainant had applied for RMC No.2/2001 but later he told the same might be 2/2011 relating of change of classification of land. He further stated that their office searched the aforesaid case record and found that no such case bearing RMC No.1/2011 has been registered in the concerned section. The complainant averred that the RMC 2/88 is co-related to RMC 01/2011. The RMC No.2/88 has searched but could not be traced out as it is very old case, and the same might have been eaten by white ants. So they averred that due to the above reasons, the certified copies could not be supplied yet, hence there is no deficiency in service, so prayed to drop the case.
The OP.s are filed nothing except their counter without supporting affidavits. Both parties have been minutely heard the case at length and the evidences considered.
3. It reveals from the record that, the complainant had applied for certified copies of entire order sheet and R.I. report of the cases, 1. Misc Case No.02/88, 2. RMC. No.01/2011 & 3. RMC. No.02/2012 and deposited urgent court fees of Rs.10/- for each case as in prescribed form on dt.13.10.2016 which was registered as C.A.No.2178, 2179 & 2180 dt.13.10.2016. The complainant contends that he has approached the OP.s for several times but for no action thereof. Hence under compulsion the complainant craves the leave of this forum and prayed to fulfillment of his grievances with compensation.
4. From the averments of both the parties it is seen that, the complainant had applied for certified copies on dt.13.10.2016 and paid Rs.10/- for each content as urgent court fees for his urgent need. Unless supplying the required copies the OP.s kept the complaint in dark for above 06 months implying one pretext or the other. The complainant has filed a decision of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case between Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone Vs Superintendent, Civil Court, 2002 (3) CPR 160 (NC) where in the Hon’ble Commission held that, “Grant of certified copy of an order of Court is not a sovereign function but an administrative function since it is not a judicial function and applicant who deposits fee for such copy is a consumer”.
5. Administrative authority, vested in the OP.1 to regulate the duties in the present case, is not discretionary, more on obligation towards the public of his territorial jurisdiction. supplying certified copies, governed by the revenue rules is not mere statutory, but are social obligations, to which the authorities, as are OP.s are bound to act upon the applications of the litigants and cannot refrain from it through their capricious and unscrupulous attitudes rather refraining from their duties, is arbitrary and socially abhorring, and no law shall shield their such capricious and unscrupulous activity, when these are resultant to the injury and loss to the subject of as welfare state.
6. Services provided to the citizen of a welfare state have many strides. Service in a democratic country are services offered by the government, to it’s potential users. Thus no service offered by statutory or official bodies are excluded from the ambience of the C.P.Act, and contra would be against the provisions of the Act.
7. In so many cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, that “a Government or semi government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the C.P.Act as any other private body rendering similar service.” Hence from the above observations we found deficiency in service on the part of OP.s and is a clear case of negligence, arbitrary and highhanded, so the complainant is entitled for relief.
Hence we allowed the complaint against the OP.s with cost.
ORDER
i. The OP.s supra are hereby directed to supply the contents/certified copies as demanded by the present complainant immediately and shall refrain from if any copies supplied earlier.
ii. The OP.s shall further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation which includes the cost of this litigation to the complainant.
iii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, the total sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 25th day of April' 2017.
MEMBER MEMBER, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
Date of Preparation:
Date of dispatch :
Date of received by
the A/A for Ops / Complainant :
Initial of the dispatcher.
