CHINTAMANI MISHRA vs TAHASILDAR, KHANDAPARA

DEFICIENCY in service to grant certified copies is the complaint by the complainant

TAHASILDAR, Khandapara is custodian of records of vesting case No. 1 of 1987 and O.P.L.R. Case No. 214 of 1959. Complainant filed copy application No. 881 of 1989 on 25.9.1989 to get certified copy of the order in vesting case No. 1 of 1987 and made such application No. 1071 on 19.12.1989 to get certified copy of order in O.P.L.R. Case No. 214 of 1959. It was indicated in the receipt that copy in Application No. 881 of 1989 shall be supplied on 30.9.1989 and in Application No. 1071 of 1989 that copy shall be supplied on 5.1.1990. Since copies were not supplied, complainant had to go from Cuttuck where he is serving to Khandapara about 16 times to come back disappointed. Complainant addressed petitions to Sub-Collector, Nayagarh who is the immediate Superior and controlling authority of TAHASILDAR and to Collector who is the next Superior authority and in overall charge of the district administration making grievance of non-availability of certified copies which were sent by registered post and have been received by them. In spite of it when each of the three officers remained silent and complainant could not get the service of supply of certified copies for which payments have been made, this complaint was filed on 24.11.1990. Notices have been sent to the opposite parties by the Commission through registered post and they have received the same. Despite receipt of notice, no opposite party has entered appearance or stated its case. Accordingly, we heard the complainant ex parte.

Assertions in complaint petition are corroborated by documents. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion on materials available that complainant has made proper application for certified copies and has been assured to be supplied with the copies on 30.9.1989 and 5.1.1990 as indicated in the receipts granted for the purpose. We are also satisfied that grievances made to opposite parties have remained unheeded.

QUESTION is whether complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whether there is deficiency in service by opposite parties. The Act applies to all goods and services as provided in Section 1(3). Definition of ''Service'' in Section 2(o) is inclusive definition to mean service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with conveying of information but does not include the rendering of service free of charge or under contract of personal service. A certified copy conveys informations of the contents of a document. Facility is provided in the Orissa Records Manual for obtaining certified copy where procedure has been laid down. Certified copy of a public document though a secondary evidence under the Evidence Act is admissible in evidence without primary evidence being laid in any Court or tribunal. Information conveyed by it is authentic. A certified copy is granted on payment of fees prescribed. Fee is that which is paid for the service to be rendered. It is distinct from tax. Thus, grant of certified copy is a service rendered on payment for conveying information in respect of contents of a document. Since complainant has paid for such service to be rendered, he is a consumer and can make a complaint under the Act where there is deficiency in service.

TAHASILDAR is paid by State Government to discharge various governmental functions. Payment to fie officer who is posted as TAHASILDAR is to render the service of granting certified copies of records in his custody on payment of fee prescribed as per the procedure laid down. Thus, State Government has hired service of the Officer for a consideration and complainant is a beneficiary of services of TAHASILDAR which State Government has approved by the provisions of Orissa Record Manual. Sub-Collector and Collector are paid salary to supervise discharge of duties by the TAHASILDAR amongst other functions entrusted to them and complainant is a beneficiary of such service of supervision with approval of State Government. State Government has always encouraged grievances being made against in action of subordinates to higher officers for which grievance cells have been also opened in each office. Thus, Complainant is a beneficiary of services by the officers with approval of the State Government who has hired the services of officers on payment of salary. Though employment under Government is a statue under our constitution, essentially it is a contract of employment. Thus, taking any view of the matter, complainant is a consumer and obtaining certified copy is a service rendered by opposite parties. Apart from the fact that complainant has paid for it, State Government has hired services of the officers to render service to the complainant who has applied for the certified copy. When such certified copy was not supplied on the dates fixed or within a reasonable period thereafter, there is deficiency of service. There can be no doubt that complainant is deprived of the authentic information being conveyed to him although he has paid for the same. There is justification for the complaint. If opposite parties or any of them would have stated their case under what circumstances certified copy was not supplied, we would have been in a position to consider the same. They have been advised to remain silent When a person holding public office does not come forward with the case within its knowledge, adverse inference can be drawn that he had nothing to justify for which he remained silent. We are not inclined to draw an inference that they did not care for the statutory authority vested in the Commission inspite of receipt of notice though such a doubt in mind would not be unreasonable. We can only make a note of caution for all persons who hold public offices that respect to authority of others breeds respect to the offices they hold. Cold behaviour only justifies beaurocratic attitude of scant regard for authorities. For a democracy where rule of law is to prevail, all officers should come forward to co-operate the attitude of avoidance.

COMPLAINANT has asserted that he has spent Rs. 640/- for his journey expenses. He has spent Rs. 16/- towards fees for copies. COMPLAINANT has sent letters by registered post. We direct opposite parties to pay Rs. 700/- towards expenditure incurred on these counts. Since copy applications are pending, we direct Tahasildar to grant certified copies within fifteen days of receipt of this order. Amount of Rs. 700/- shall be paid within two months of receipt of this order. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs. 700/-.

IN the result, complaint is allowed to the extent indicated above with cost of Rs. 500/-. The amount of Rs. 700/- and cost of Rs. 500/- shall be paid within two months of receipt of the order and the certified copies shall also be granted within fifteen days of receipt of the order. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Revenue Department for information for issue of necessary instruction to the subordinate officers of the said department. Complaint allowed.