Karamjit Singh Gill vs Ranjit Kanwar

COMPLAINANT/petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum against (i) Ranjit Kanwar, District Revenue Officer-cum-District Grievances Redressal Officer, Moga ; (ii) Ramji Dass, Reader to Deputy Commissioner and District Revenue Officer-cum-District Grievances Redressal Officer, Moga and (iii) Incharge, Copying Agency, Deputy Commissioner''s Office, Moga.

FACTS stated in the complaint are that partition proceedings of land in Village Lande-Ke titled as Gurpreet Singh and Ors. v. Karamjit Singh, were pending before Respondent No. 2 as District Revenue Officer. He decided the case on 18.1.1999. Petitioner applied for certified copy of the order with Respondent No. 3 on 12.2.1999 after affixing necessary Court fee stamps. The same was supplied to the petitioner on 11.5.1999. That the copy of the order was supplied to the petitioner on repeated representations to the Deputy Commissioner, Moga and Divisional Officer, Ferozepur whereas the certified copies of the order were supplied to his opponents Balpreet Singh and Bahadur Singh on 26.2.1999. It was alleged that the petitioner could not file the appeal against the impugned order within 30 days. However, when the appeal was filed before the Collector (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Moga), he stayed the operation of the impugned order on 2.8.1999. It was further alleged that during the intervening period, taking benefit of the impugned order dated 18.1.1999, which had been passed by Respondent No. 2, his opponents Balpreet Singh and others got the revenue entries changed and looted the crop of the petitioner by harvesting the same. According to the petitioner, he was put to a loss of Rs. 1,16,000. An FIR was lodged to that effect. Petitioner filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and claiming Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation for mental tension and harassment.

RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 contested the complaint. In the written statement it was stated that they were Government servants and discharged their duties diligently. It was denied that they had delayed the supply of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 18.1.1999 to the petitioner in any way, much less willfully or intentionally. It was further pleaded that the supply of certified copy is the job of the copying agency and they were not concerned with it in any way.

STATE of Punjab was not impleaded as party respondent. District Forum returned the finding that there was a delay in the supply of the copy to the petitioner and held that the respondents were deficient in rendering service to the petitioner. But the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation as it had failed to prove that he was either dispossessed from the land or his crops had been looted. It was held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the delay in supplying the certified copy of the impugned order which was assessed at Rs. 5,000. However, the complaint was dismissed for non-joinder of the State of Punjab, which was a necessary party. Petitioner was put at liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances.

PETITIONER, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission after expressing its doubt as to whether the petitioner could be termed as a "consumer" or whether supply of the certified copy of the order could be said to be ''''rendering of service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, without recording a firm finding on this aspect, proceeded to decide the case on merits. State Commission dismissed the appeal on merits by recording the following finding: "The complainant himself took 24 days to apply for the certified copy of the judgment after the pronouncement of the same on 18.1.1999. He had applied for the supply of certified copy on 12.2.1999. Nothing has come on the record as to when did the opposite side in that case i.e. Balpreet Singh and Bahadur Singh had applied for the certified copy of the judgment dated 18.1.1999. It cannot be ruled out that if they had applied for the certified copy of the impugned order immediately after the pronouncement of the order, they could be given certified copy of the order earlier than the complainant, who had applied for the same on 12.2.1999. It has further not come on the record whether Balpreet Singh and Bahadur Singh had applied for the same on urgent basis. There is also no allegation that the copies of the orders, which may have been applied for by certain other persons after 12.2.1999 were given the copies of the orders prior to 11.5.1999. In these circumstances, we find no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying the copy of the order to the complainant on 11.5.1999. Further nothing stopped the complainant to inspect the file and note down the order dated 18.1.1999 and file the appeal on the basis of uncertified copy of the order and praying for exemption from filing the certified copy. Normally, the Courts accept such a prayer if the appeal is filed within the period of limitation. Nothing was pointed out to the Appellate Authority (Collector) when it granted the stay of the operation of the order on 2.8.1999 than in fact by that time the order dated 18.1.1999 already stood implemented at the behest of the decree holders Balpreet Singh and Bahadur Singh by changing the revenue entries. If the crop had been cut by Balpreet Singh and Bahdur Singh the same should have been pointed out to the Collector and should have asked for remedial measures to be taken. It may be observed here that the District Forum had non-suited the complainant on the ground that necessary party i.e. the State of Punjab had not been impleaded as a party. Despite objection having been taken to that effect no steps were taken by the complainant to implead the State of Punjab as a party. The complaint was ordered to be filed for non-joinder of State of Punjab as necessary party. The complainant was left with liberty to approach the Civil Court, if he so desired. We thought of going into the merits of the case so that the litigation may come to an end."

BEING aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

BEFORE this Commission, petitioner moved an application to implead the State of Punjab as party respondent. Notice was issued, in response to which the State of Punjab has filed its written statement. State of Punjab, in its reply, has denied that there was any willful or intentional delay in the supply of certified copy of the order dated 18.1.1999 to the petitioner. That the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order dated 18.1.1999 on 12.2.1999 vide application No. 142. That the petitioner did not affix the proper Court fee of Rs. 40 to enable him to get the copy of the order immediately on urgent basis. That the application filed by the petitioner for getting the certified copy was a defective application, as a result of which, copy of the order could not be supplied to the petitioner. That the petitioner made good the deficiency in Court fee on 11.5.1999 and the certified copy of the order was supplied to him on the same date. It was further stated that the petitioner could have inspected the file and copied the order. That the contention raised by the petitioner that there was a lapse on the part of the respondent was refuted.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The petitioner had applied for certified copy of the order dated 18.1.1999 on 12.2.1999, after a delay of 24 days. Nothing has come on record to show as to when the opposite parties Balpreet Singh and Bahadur Singh had applied for the certified copy of the order. It has come on record now that the petitioner did not affix proper Court fee, as a result of which, the certified copy could not be supplied to him. On deposit of the shortfall of fee of Rs. 40 on 11.5.1999, the certified copy was supplied to the petitioner on the same date. Allegation that the respondents had supplied the certified copy to Balpreet Singh and Bahadur Singh immediately and delayed the supply of copy to the petitioner, cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner had applied for certified copy of the order on ordinary or urgent basis. Similarly, as to whether Balpreet Singh and Bahadur Singh had applied for certified copy of the order on ordinary or urgent basis. It has also not come on record as to on which date Balpreet Singh and Bahadur Singh had applied for certified copy of the order and the date on which it was supplied to them. Nothing stopped the petitioner from inspecting the file and copying the order to file the appeal on the basis of uncertified copy of the order with a prayer to exempt from filing the certified copy. Normally the Courts accept such prayer, if the appeal is filed within the period of limitation.

TAKING an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to prove that the delay in supplying the certified copy to him was willful or with mala fide intention. The fault, if any, lay with the petitioner as he had filed a defective application. That certified copy could not be supplied because the petitioner had not affixed proper Court fee. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents for the delayed supply of the certified copy.

IN view of the above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.