GOEL S.PAL vs INCHARGE COPYING AGENCY

BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant, who was complainant before the District Forum, applied to the Copying Agency for a certified copy of certain documents in the prescribed proforma after affixing 50p. Court fee stamp. The application was registered against serial number 2414 dated 4.2.91. The complainant agreed to pay the balance charges at the time of the delivery of the certified copies in accordance with the rules, instructions and the practice being followed. The complainant was given date after date to collect the certified copies. A Photostat copy of the sheet on which dates starting from 12.2.91 upto 21.7.93 were given has been filed but the copies were not supplied. It was during the pendency of the complainant''s application that on 25.2.93 the present complaint was filed before the District Forum-I.

NONE appeared on behalf of the opposite party. The complainant filed his affidavit. District Forum-I, however, dismissed the complaint by the impugned order on the ground: (i). The complainant had already moved an application under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to prosecute the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for illegally directing the Copying Agency orally not to issue the certified copies. The complainant having made the said application for permission, the District Forum was not "inclined" to give him relief in the present complaint. (ii). The complainant had affixed Court fee of only 50 paise and accordingly the complainant could not be Held to have hired the services of the opposite party on payment of consideration.

Aggrieved by the order the complainant has preferred this appeal. None appeared for the respondent inspite of service. We have heard the appellant and have perused the record.

It is well known that application for certified copies are made on payment of a fixed fee and the applicants are required to pay the balance amount due according to the prescribed charges as the time of delivery of the copy after preparation thereof. In any case, the definition ''consumer'' is wide enough to include cases where consideration is partly paid and partly promised to be paid later on. The complainant is clearly covered under the definition ''consumer''. We are further clearly of the view that reference to application under Section 197, Cr.P.C. made against a certain judicial officer to the High Court had no relevance in so far as the present complaint was concerned. It cannot be denied that the complainant was not issued certified copies for more than two years.

IN our view, this is a clear case of deficiency in service and the complainant has been put to totally avoidable inconvenience which must have caused mental agony. It can also be easily imagined that one does not apply for certified copies of certain documents for the fun of it. The complainant must have required those copies in connection with some litigation and he might have suffered for want of those copies. In the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- is paid to the appellant. The amount shall be paid in the first instance by the State Government. It will be open to the State Government to fix responsibility and recover the amount from the officer(s) concerned. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties as well as District Forum-I. Order pronounced.