GHANASHYAM PATEL vs RENUKA SHARMA

THE appellant has filed this appeal in person, but does not appear today when the case is called for hearing. THE respondents have not appeared though noticed. We examined the records of the District Forum (C.D. Case No. 6/95 before the District Forum, Sambalpur) and perused the impugned order. In the circumstances, we proceed to dispose of this appeal in the absence of both parties.

THE complainant in C.D. Case No. 6 of 1995 of the District Forum, Sambalpur is the appellant in this appeal. THE complainant appellant is an Advocate who had appeared for one Dr. H.B. Khorana in H.R.C. Misc. Case No. 4 of 1988 pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-House Rent Controller, Sambalpur. He filed a copy application praying for urgent certified copy of the deposition of one Saroj Manjari Devi in the said case. He has stated that the said certified copy was necessary to be filed before the Hon''ble High Court in a pending writ application, that is, O.J.C. No. 3510 of 1994. According to him, the urgent certified copy was to be given to him on the same day or on the day following. But he was not supplied with the copy upto 5 p.m. of 23.12.94. He was asked to come on 2.1.95 to receive the copy after the X-mas vacation. He, therefore, claims redressal and compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The respondents as opposite parties entered appearance before the District Forum and filed a show cause denying their liability. The sum and substance of the defence before the District Forum by the present respondents was that the copy application was filed on 16.12.94. But it was found that the folios submitted by the complainant-appellant was insufficient for preparation of the certified copy for which he was called upon to file additional folios which the complainant filed on 22.12.94. Their further case is that the copy was made ready on 23.12.94. Since that was the last working day of the Court before the X-mas vacation, a large number of copy applications were pending and filed to be disposed of on that day. It is further stated that the office was working at top speed till 5 p.m. when the complainant approached the Copying Department for making over the certified copy to him. He was asked to wait for some time for the necessary formalities to be completed such as signatures of the Comparing Officer, Certifying Officer etc., but the complainant was impatient and left the premises without taking the copy.

Affidavits and counter-affidavits were filed before the District Forum by the respective parties in support of their pleas. The District Forum after hearing the case of both parties, came to a conclusion that there could not be any deficiency on the part of the present respondents looking to the volume of work to be disposed of on the last working day of the year and therefore, the case was dismissed by the District Forum.

IN appeal, the grievance of the appellant in the memorandum of appeal is that the District Forum has not applied its mind properly and has summarily dismissed the case without going into the merits. After going through the reasoned order passed by the District Forum, we are of the view that the aforesaid ground is not sustainable. The District Forum has in fact gone to the merits of the matter and came to a conclusion that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the present respondents. Though the complainant appellant contended before the District Forum that the plea taken by the present respondents before the Forum is false, no thing has been proved neither before the District Forum nor before us to substantiate the said plea. It is also common I knowledge that on die closing day before vacation, a large-number of copy applications are filed by parties and Advocates and each of them is no doubt anxious to get the certified copy but at times the office fails to cope with the demands due to the heavy burden. In the aforesaid circum stances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.