State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pushparaj Apparao Ghodke vs Assistant Superintendent on 26 March, 2024
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSALCOMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
APPEAL NO.A/24/31
(Arising out of Order dated 24/08/2023 in Complaint No.255 of 2023 passed by
the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solapur)
Pushparaj Apparao Ghodke
Address : Block "H" Room No.9,
Municipal Colony, 256 Gale Raviwar Peth, ... Appellant/
Solapur - 413005. (Org. Complainant)
Versus
Assistant Superintendent
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Court Office,
Solapur District and Sessions Court Complex, ... Respondent/
Solapur - 413003, (Org. Opposite Party)
BEFORE:
Mr. M.V. Sharma, Presiding Member
Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member
For Appellant : Appellant present in person
For Respondent : None
ORDER
(Dated 26/03/2024) Per: Mukesh V. Sharma, Hon'ble Presiding Member
1. The present appeal before this Hon'ble State Consumer Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, is filed being aggrieved from the judgement passed in CC/255/2023 by District Commission Solapur, herein referred to as the Appellant, against a Assistant Superintendent of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Solapur, herein referred to as the Respondent.
2. Facts of the case is as follows:
The Appellant had filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Solapur on November 30, 2021. Subsequently, on December 3, 2021, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rendered a judgment order in the matter. Seeking a certified copy of the judgment order, the Appellant applied at the Assistant Superintendent's office on December 6, 2021, requesting a copy of the four-page order at prescribed fee of Rs. 4/- per page and was expecting to Rs. 16 for four pages, but on 9th December 2021 the clerk of Respondent demanded Rs. 116/- citing reason that with order you have to compulsorily take copy of complaint of 25 pages, being aggrieved Consumer Complaint was filed, which was dismissed at the time of admission only.
3. Order and observation of the District Commission in nutshell is that the Respondent in this case is a government office, tasked with providing services to the public in accordance with established regulations. It is essential to note that such services are not intended for profit-making purposes but are aimed at serving the public interest. Under the Consumer Protection Act, goods or services purchased for the purpose of profit margins are covered and free services are not covered . The complaint filed by the Appellant / Original Complainant does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and hence complaint was dismissed at the time of admission itself.
4. We have carefully examined the facts and arguments presented before us by the Appellant. The Respondent, being a government office, operates within the sphere of public service, providing essential services to citizens in accordance with established norms and regulations. We are with the District Commission view that such services are not driven by profit motives but rather by the mandate to serve the public interest and only statutory charges are being levied to give the certified copies to the parties as per rules.
5. However, the gravamen of this appeal lies not only in the legal intricacies but also in the unacceptable conduct demonstrated by the Appellant. Shockingly, the Appellant, in his submissions, resorted to using egregious and derogatory language directed towards the District Consumer Commission, particularly targeting the President. The use of such language, characterized by disrespect, insolence, and disdain, represents a blatant affront to the dignity and authority of the quasi judiciary.
6. It is profoundly regrettable and disheartening that the Appellant without any evidence has put baseless and vitriolic remarks. Any attempt to undermine the integrity or impugn the reputation of the judiciary through the use of offensive language or disrespectful behaviour cannot be countenanced and must be unequivocally condemned. We meticulously considered the submissions, perused the documents and heard matter at length, and we have arrives at the following conclusions:
ORDER
a) Order passed by the District Commission in CC/255/2023 is confirmed and appeal filed by Appellant against the order is hereby dismissed.
b) The Appellant shall bear the costs of this appeal.
c) Certified Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.
[M.V. Sharma] Presiding Member [Dr. Satish A. Munde] Member aj