HANUMAN SINGH vs KHUSHI RAM YADAV

HANUMAN Singh Patwari of Tehsil & District Rewari has come up in appeal against the order dated 5.12.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Rewari, whereby the complaint of Khushi Ram Yadav-respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Patwari, Tehsildar, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, in the mater of supplying the certified copy of a certain document (Akas Shajra), has been allowed by passing the following order: "For deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, we allow a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant, out of which a sum of Rs. 500/- is to be borne by opposite party No. 1 himself, who is liable personally, whereas the remaining amount to be borne by the other opposite parties. The payment of compensation be made within 30 days, failing which the opposite parties would be liable to action under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

ACCORDING to the complainant, he had applied for the certified copy of Akas Shajra on 19.1.1995 but the same was supplied on 21.11.1995 due to which he suffered lot of mental torture and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 26,000/-. The appellant-Hanuman Singh Patwari, in his reply, pleaded that the copy has since been supplied on 21.11.1995 and the delay in the supply of copy was due to the fact that he was over-burdened with work and a number of other applications were also pending with him. It was also pleaded by him that as the application for the supply of a certified copy was received by post, he was not sure whether the copy was to be supplied or not. On that account, it was pleaded that there was no intentional delay. Hence, no deficiency in service on his part was proved. Despite all this, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint. In the appeal before us, a number of contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has also vehemently pleaded that a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Revenue Patwari had been established. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that since the application for the supply of certified copy had been received by post and the Patwari was over- worked, the delay in the supply of copy did not amount to any deficiency in service. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.