State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Rakesh Seth vs Hptdc on 11 June, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.78/2011
Date of Decision: 11.06.2012
Shri Rakesh Seth, Proprietor M/s
Elecmech Engineer, Oakwood
Palace, Jakhoo, Shimla-1,
H.P.
..
Appellant
Versus
1. The
Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited,
Ritz Annexe, Shimla-1, H.P.
2. The
Project Officer, Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Ritz
Annexe, Shimla-1, H.P.
Respondents
.
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting? [1]
For the Appellant: Mr.
Rakesh Manta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr.
Abhay Gupta, Advocate vice
Mr.
Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2010 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby, his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, which he filed against the respondents, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents, to pay a sum of `1,85,000/-, by way of damages and also for refund of `1200/- charged from him as copying fee, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant had executed an agreement with the respondents for doing some work for them. The agreement provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration. A dispute arose between the parties. Appellant wanted to approach the Honble High Court for appointment of an Arbitrator, for which he required a copy of the agreement. The original agreement was available with the respondents, who are the functionaries of a public undertaking, engaged in commercial activity. Respondents charged a sum of `1200/- as copying fee, to supply a photostat copy, which was not legible. Appellant approached the respondents to supply a legible copy, but to no avail. He then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
3. Complaint was contested by the respondents, on the ground that they were a statutory body, performing statutory functions and as such there was no relationship of a service provider and service seeker between them and the appellant, respectively. Learned District Forum has accepted this plea of the respondents and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. As already noticed hereinabove, respondents though a public undertaking, are engaged in commercial activity, as they are running hotels. They are not providing free service to anybody, leave alone some welfare service, free of cost. A copy of agreement, which had been executed between them and the appellant, was sought from them, for which they charged `1200/- from the appellant.
By charging the aforesaid amount of money, they undertook to provide the service of supply of a copy. That was not a free service. The copy that was supplied by them to the appellant was, admittedly, illegible.
Supply of illegible copy by them amounted to deficiency in service.
6. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the respondents are functionaries of a Government owned Corporation which is engaged in statutory duties. Submission has been noticed, only to be rejected. The mere fact that the respondents are functionaries of a Government owned Corporation would not take them away from the purview of service provider, if they charge, at commercial rate, for providing any particular service, including the service of supplying of a copy of agreement, which they executed in favour of the appellant.
7. As a result of the above stated position, we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order of Learned District Forum and consequently the complaint is allowed. We are not convinced by the submission made on behalf of the appellant that he had sustained damages to the tune of `1,85,000/- for visiting Shimla from his place of work and thus sustained loss of business etc. However, we feel that he is entitled to the amount of `1200/- paid by him, on account of copying fee and also reasonable damages for harassment caused to him, on account of non-supply of legible copy of agreement. A sum of `5000/- should be reasonable amount of compensation for such harassment.
Consequently, we direct the respondents to refund the amount of `1200/- charged from the appellant and also to pay him `5000/- as damages and `5000/- as litigation expenses. We further direct that in case the aforesaid amounts of money are not paid within 30 days, interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be payable on the aforesaid amounts of money from the date of this order to the date of payment of the aforesaid amounts.
8. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member June 11, 2012.
*dinesh* [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?