State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M.Raja Manohar vs 1. Superintendent Central Copying ... on 7 April, 2014
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD. C.C.No.32 OF 2013 Between: M.Raja Manohar S/o Shri M.Sankara Rao Aged 38 years, Occ: Works Manager At Ordnance Factory, Medak R/o Pedapudi, Kuchipudi Centre (PO) Movva Mandalam, Krishna District, A.P. Complainant And 1. Superintendent Central Copying Section Principal District & Sessions Court Sanga Reddy, Medak District Andhra Pradesh-001 2. Superintendent, Office of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Sanga Reddy, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh-001 3. Bench Clerk (Criminal), Office of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanga Reddy, Medak District Andhra Pradesh-001 Opposite parties Counsel for the Complainant M/s Party in person Counsel for the Opposite parties Party in person(OP1&2) Served(OP3) QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER.
& SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
MONDAY THE SEVENTH DAYOF APRIL TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN Order (As per Sri T.Ashok Kumar, Honble Member) ***
1. This complaint is filed U/s.17(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Superintendent Central Copying Section, District and Sessions Court, Sanga Reddy, Medak District and two others seeking direction to pay exemplary damages/compensation of `37,88,300/- together with costs of `10,000/-.
2. The facts leading to the present case in brief are that the Station House Officer P.S. Indra Karan, Ordnance Factory Medak filed final report in FIR 06 of 2010 at SHO/PS Indra Karan, Ordnance Factory Medak Estate, Yedumailaram, Medak District before Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate Sanga Reddy (AJFCM). On 5.5.2010 assailing the final report the complainant filed protest petition under the provisions of Cr.P.C. before AJFCM concerned and the opposite party no.2 postponed it till the middle of July 2010. The complainant due to sickness did not attend the court on the date of adjournment and thereafter on 4.8.2010 the opposite party no.2 returned the protest petition as not maintainable. The complainant after compliance of the objections resubmitted protest petition.
When the opposite party no.2 did not place the petition before AJFCM, the complainant lodged a complaint dated 16.8.2010 before the Prl. District Judge, Medak. Then the opposite partyno.2 placed protest petition before AJFCM and it was numbered as CFR NO.1777 and 1778 of 2010. Later both the CFRs were adjourned several times till 18.11.2010. The complainant made a complaint dated 29.11.2010 to the Honble Chief Justice of A.P. and Principal District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. On 14.02.2011 AJFCM directed the complainant to file documents as prosecution exhibits on 24.2.2011 and the complainant filed 272 documents in CFR No.1777 of 2010 and one document in CFR NO.1778 of 2010 as prosecution exhibits. Since repeated adjournments were given infringing his fundamental rights, the complainant had sent a copy application by paying application fees of `1/- to the opposite party no.1 by registered post for certified copies of documents under Rule 203(A) of A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1990.
3. The complainant simultaneously submitted an application under RTI dated 2.5.2011 to Public Information Officer/Prl. Dist. And Sessions Court and sought for the documents prayed in copy application.
The opposite partyno.2 returned the copy application dated 2.5.2011 to the opposite partyno.1 on the premise that the certified copies of all exhibits in CFR NO.1777 and 1778 of 2010 are not marked as exhibits. The Public Information Officer/Prl District and Sessions Court also failed to respond to the application under RTI and the complainant got issued notice dated 9.8.2011. The opposite parties gave reply to it informing the complainant that the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer in FIR No.06 of 2010 are not available in the court of AJFCM.
4. The complainant submits that he did not file the copy application for documents related to third party proceedings and moreover Rule 203(A) of A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orsders, 1990 does not debar any one taking certified copies of documents until they are marked by the Court. Since AJFCM is not taking any decision on protest petition, the complainant filed a petition u/s 408 Cr.PC before the Addl Prl District and Sessions Judge for its transfer to any other Court. On 19.07.2012 the court declined to transfer the protest petition and granted relief for its disposal as early as possible. Thereafter the protest petition was repeatedly adjourned till the first week of November 2012 on which date the protest petition was placed before AJFCM without the prosecution exhibits and the AJFCM passed oral instructions to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 for their tracing the said exhibits and adjourned the case to 20.11.2012. On the said date, the complainant appeared before the court but the opposite partyno.3 did not place the case file of protest petition and the case was again adjourned to 12.12.2012, 21.12.201 and 25.1.2013. The complainant suspecting that the prosecution exhibits are very much available and intellectually they are not bringing them to light issued legal notices dated 24.12.2012 and 7.1.2013 to the opposite parties requesting the opposite parties to restore all the prosecution exhibits to their place in the court of AJFCM without any harm/fudge and comply with CA NO.2767 of 2011 free of cost and claimed compensation for mental agony. The opposite parties did not reply to the legal notices.
5. The complainant by relying upon the decisions of the Honble National Commission in Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone vs Superintendent, Civil Court, R.P.No.2135 of 2000 and the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Laxman v Trimbak stated that the responsibly of the opposite parties are not just merely providing certified copies of documents as per rules and the other implied duties like receiving petitions and documents filed by parties as exhibits/evidence placing them before court for decisions as per adjournments, returning them to office, keeping safe custody of them, maintaining registers for their indexing as per categories, handing over and taking over them in times of transfer and so on. The complainant also relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Brar Assn, Tamil Nadu vs Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 wherein the Supreme Court held that wherever the statutory provision requires service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of cases, it is not only necessary for the governments or departments or other statutory bodies to send a reply to such a notice but it is further necessary to properly deal with all material points and issues raised in the notice.
6. The complainant submits that when he had applied for certified copy in May 2011 the concerned copy application was returned with the endorsement that the documents were not marked as exhibits but the copy application dated 21.12.2012 was not returned with the same remark. The copies of statements recorded by investigation officer and the prosecution exhibits submitted by the complainant disappeared from the court. In order to attend the court of AJFCM the complainant had travelled about 45 times incurring cost of `1,000/- per each trip to travel from Kuchipudi to Sanga Reddy. For procuring all the documentary evidence the complainant had applied around 100 applications under RTI by incurring a cost of `200/- per each application by way of registered post for around six years to which the complainant has been obstructed in performance of duties since 12.06.2006 and loss of salary thereof. Therefore, the complainant claimed a total compensation of `37,88,300/- towards exemplary damages/compensation towards mental agony together with costs of `10,000/-.
7. The opposite party no.1 filed written version contending that on receipt of notice dated 24.12.2012 in the capacity of Superintendent, Central Copying Section, Principal District and Sessions Court he gave reply on 31.12.2012. The complainant has received copies of documents under RTI Act and thereafter sought for supply of free copies vide CA No.2767/2011 which was already returned. As per Rule 203 of Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders in A.P., Rs.2/- per each side of page court fee stamp is to be affixed and there is no provision under the said rules to issue certified copies free of cost or free of court fee stamps. The Copying section never withheld any documents in respect of Cr.No.6 of 2011 on the file of Addl. JFCM, Sangareddy.
8. The opposite party no.1 submits that he is a public servant and diligently discharging his duties and there are no grounds to claim any compensation for mental agony. The complainant did not hire the services of the Superintendent, Central Copying Section and the complainant does not fall under definition of consumer. It is further contended that Rule 188 of the Civil Rules of Practice insists on the giving of marked documents certified copies only and he is insisting issuance of the certified copies of unmarked documents free of cost. The complainant filed similar complaint before the District Forum, Krishna Machilipatnam in SR No.728 of 2011. The office of the Superintendent, Copying Section of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy is no way involved in an activity. Thus the opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The opposite party no.2 failed to appear nor made representation despite service of notice.
10. The opposite party no.3 though appeared did not choose to file counter.
11. The complainant filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A55 are marked. Though the opposite parties failed to file their respective affidavits, the opposite party no.1 filed his affidavit and did not mark any documents.
12. The complainant filed his written arguments.
13. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether this commission has jurisdiction to entertain the matter?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?
14. POINTS NO.1 AND 2 : Since the points no.1 and 2 are inter connected, they are taken up to answer together as under:
The case of the complainant is that consequent to registration of FIR 06/2010, SHO/PS at Indra Karan, Ordnance Factory Medak Estate, Yededumailaram, Medak District the concerned Sub-Divisional Police Officer had carried out investigation and filed final report and that disputing the final report the complainant filed protest petition before concerned magistrate court and the opposite party no.2 was ordered to check and put up the same. But he retained the said protest petition for more than two months without submitting any report and later it was placed before AJFCM concerned that the protest petition is not maintainable and consequently it was returned to the complainant on 4.8.2010 for compliance of the objections.
Accordingly the complainant had resubmitted protest petition to the concerned magistrate. Subsequently the protest petition numbered as CFR NO.1777/2010 and 1778/2010 by the opposite party no.2 and from time to time it was adjourned for hearing. In such circumstances, vexed with delay tactics, the complainant had lodged a complaint dated 29.11.2010 before the Honble High Court A.P. On 2.12.2010, the concerned magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and later on the matter was adjourned on number of times from 9.12.2010 to 14.02.2011 and on the said date 14.02.2011 the concerned magistrate directed the complainant to file documents on his behalf as prosecution exhibits.
Accordingly the complainant had filed 272 documents in CFR No.1777/2010 and one document in CFR No.1778 of 2010 as prosecution exhibits and they were numbered as CFR No.471 and 472 of 2011. Since the case was adjourned on several occasions, the complainant submitted copy application to the opposite party no.1 by registered post for certified copies of documents filed by him by paying court fee stamp of Rs.1/-. The complainant had simultaneously submitted an application under RTI dated 2.5.2011 to Public Information Officer/Prl District & Sessions Court at Sanga Reddy seeking the documents filed by him and other documents such as copies of statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer. The opposite partyno.2 returned the copy application dated 2.5.2011 to the opposite party no.1 with an endorsement that the certified copies of all exhibits in CFR NO.1777 and 1778 of 2010 are not marked as exhibits. Since the concerned magistrate had not taken any decision on protest petition, the complainant filed a petition u/s 408 of Cr PC before the Prl District and Sessions Judge for its transfer to any other Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Sanga Reddy. The Principal District and Sessions Judge declined to transfer the protest petition instead directed the concerned magistrate for its disposal as early as possible. The protest petition was placed before the concerned magistrate without the prosecution exhibits taking the stand that they are not available/lost in the court and the concerned magistrate gave oral instructions for their tracing and likewise it was adjourned several times. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 24.12.2012 to the opposite parties no1 to 3 copy application no.2767 of 2011. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 stopped placing protest petition before the concerned magistrate claiming that the prosecution exhibits do not exist with the court. In the circumstances the complainant sought direction to the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to pay exemplary damages/compensation of `37,88,300/- towards mental agony and costs of `10,000/-.
15. On the other hand the case of the opposite part no.1 is that as per rule 203 of Civil Rules of Practice and circular orders in A.P. Rs.2/- per each side of page court fee stamp is to be affixed and there is no provision under the said rules to issue certified copies free of cost and that the complainant did not hire his services. It is further contended by the first opposite party that the complainant himself did not obtain the certified copies as the costs for obtaining the same would be high. He clarified that the complainant got the copies under the RTI and as such his grievance stands complied with and that the complainant had taken away the CA 2767/11 without complying the objections and did not resubmit it.
16. So far as the issue regarding the claim of the opposite parties discharging sovereign function as Government servants is concerned, the opposite parties are government servants and were carrying out their functions in their official capacity. However, issuing of certified copies for payment on prescribed fees as per the application made by the complainant before the opposite parties cannot be regarded as a sovereign function. This is part of their administrative functions which they were required to perform for a prescribed fee. This function, therefore, cannot be called a sovereign function and the said view is supported by a decision of the Honble National Commission in a case between Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone v. Superintendent Civil Court [R.P. No.2135 of 2000/1986-2004 Consumer 7211 (NS)] which has been relied upon by the complainant. It was held that since this is not a judicial function, it does not partake the character of a sovereign function. It was also held by the National Commission in that case that an applicant for certified copy of a judicial order, who deposits a fee for obtaining such copy is a Consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the processing of such application and the preparation and delivery of the copy in consideration of the copying charges/fee by the concerned staff attached to the court would be a service within the meaning of the Act.
17. As per Rule 203-A of THE ANDHDRA PRADESH CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE AND CIRCULAR ORDERS, 1990 (1) On an application by the party, the court may grant copy of a proceeding or document filed in or in the custody, of the court by getting it reproduced mechanically on payment of Rs. (2-00)1 per page by means of affixture of court fee labels to the application for copy or in cash through lodgment Schedule with in such time as the court may grant.
(2)The same Rules as are applicable to certified copies to be taken out on copy stap papers will also apply mutatis mutandis to copies taken by mechanical reproduction.
18. In the case on hand the complainant did not place any dependable evidence on record to say that he deposited the required fee for issuance of certified copies of the documents sought for by him. He even did not file the returned copy application to show that no such objections were taken on his copy application. Mere affixing of Rs.1/- adhesive court fee stamp on copy application as pleaded by the complainant is not sufficient for issuance of certified copies of the documents sought for by him and he has no right to seek certified copies of document free of cost. Therefore the above decision relied upon by the complainant and also other decisions referred to by him in the complaint in the said context are not at all helpful for him in this case. In such circumstances, since the complainant did not pay required fee for issuance of certified copies of documents, he does not come under the definition of consumer and therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
19. The opposite party no.1 also contended in his written version that as per Rule 188 of Civil Rules of Practice only marked documents of certified copies can be issued under the said rule and that the complainant pleads that certified copies of unmarked documents can also be given Rule 188 of C.P.C. reads as under:
188(128-B)(2)1 Persons entitled to apply for copies:-(1)
Any party to a suit or proceeding shall be entitled to obtain copies of judgments, decrees, or orders made or of any documents exhibited in such suit or proceeding on payment of charges in the manner prescribed under these rules.(2)
Any person who is not a party to a suit or proceeding requiring, copies of judgments, decrees or orders made or of any documents exhibited in such suit or proceedings may apply to the court for grant of such copies by duly stamped petition supported by an affidavit stating the purpose for which the copy is required.
Provided that, in cases of doubt whether, the copy applied for should be furnished, the application shall be placed before the judge for his decision. If the application is refused by the Judge it shall be returned to the applicant with the order of Judge endorsed on it.
20. In view of the said rule position the complainant has no right to seek certified copies of unmarked documents that too free of cost. In such circumstances his contentions in connection with the dictionary meaning of the word exhibit etc., are also not useful for him.
21. Very specifically the opposite party no.1 in his written version pleaded that the complainant himself did not obtain the certified copies as the cost for the same would be high and he did not want to pay the same. That apart Ex.A4 letter in Dis.no.4121 dated 23.8.2011 addressed by Information Officer cum Administrative Officer, Principle and Sessions Court, Medak at Sanga Reddy to the complainant reads as under:
With reference to the subject cited, I am furnishing herewith the certified copies of FIR along with complaint I Crl.|No.6/2010 U/ Sec.3(1) (viii)(ix)(x)(xv) of of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, 186 of IPC, certified ocpy of final report U/ Sec.173 Cr.PC dated 23.03.2010 corresponding to FIR NO.6/2010 submitted to the Court of Addl.JFCM, Sangareddy, certified copies of all exhibits (they are 272 in number) in CFR No.471/2011 and certified copies of exhibit (one in number) in CFR No.472 of 2011.
The statements of witnesses recorded by the investigation Officer of FIR No.6/2010 are not available in the file as stated by ADM Cr. Dt.20.6.11. Hence the above said documents are furnished.
22. Since the complainant himself marked the said documents, there is no hesitation to believe that the certified copies of documents required by him were already furnished on his application dated 2.5.2011 under RTI Act, 2005 and the complainant himself marked such copies as exhibits in this case. In such circumstances, there is no subsisting necessity for him to have such certified copies of documents prayed for under CA 2767 of 2011 and probably for the said reason he did not deposit requisite charges by way of court fee for issuance of certified copies on his CA 2767/2011 which is the subject matter of this case. If at all any statements said to have been recorded by investigating officer in FIR 6/2010 are missing the complainant can make representation to the concerned District Judge for getting them traced and to proceed with the erring employees departmentally and therefore the contention of the complainant that he was shell shocked on hearing non-existence of statement of witnesses is no way helpful in this case.
23. The opposite partyno.1 also pleaded that he informed the complainant that having taken away CA 2767/2011 for compliance and for not representing the same following due procedure the complainant has to be blamed for himself and in support of his contentions photostat copy of Copyist (A.Register) has been filed by him and it discloses that C.A.No.2767 of 2011 was returned to the complainant under his initial. Inspite of such a contention the complainant did not choose to refute the same by filing rejoinder nor in his evidence affidavit and in such circumstances there is acceptable force in the contention of the opposite party no.1 that he was not at fault in the said context. He even did not resubmit the copy application complying with the objections. Since the complainant did not pay the requisite charges for issuance of certified copies he cannot be called as consumer in this case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing the certified copies to the complainant. In such circumstances there is no need to go into the further details of the case narrated by him in the complaint so also the compensation aspect. Thus, the points no.1 and 2 are decided against the complainant.
24. Point No.3: In view of the findings in points no.1 and 2 against the complainant, he is not entitled for any compensation and therefore it is also decided against him.
25. In the result the complaint is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Dt.07.04.2014 కె.ఎం.కె.* APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For complainant for opposite parties NIL NIL EXHIBITS MARKED For the complainants:
Ex.A1 Consumer complaint Ex.A2 Copy of Memo Petition filed before Honble Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sanga Reddy of Exhibits, dated 24.02.2011.
Ex.A3 Copy of Application under Rule 128 (C. R. P) Form No.1 applied on 02.05.2011 Ex.A4 Copy of application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 02.05.2011 Ex.A5 Copy of reply of Public Information Officer dated 23.08.2011 along with Exhibits No. 1 & 272.
Ex.A6 Copy of application under rule 128 ( C. R. P) Form No. 1 applied on 21.12.2012 Ex.A7 Copy of Original legal Notice dated 24.12.2012 to the 1st Respondent & its fair one as true copy.
Ex.A8 Copy of Register Postal receipt dated 24.12.2012.
Ex.A9 Copy of original Legal Notice dated 24.12.2012 to the 2nd Respondent Ex.A10 Copy of Register Postal receipt dated 24.12.2012 Ex.A11 Copy of Original Legal Notice dated 24.12.012 to the 3rd respondent.
Ex.A12 Copy of Register Postal receipt dated 24.12.2012 Ex.A13 Copy of Postal Acknowledgement Card as proof of receipt of Legal Notice dated 24.12.2012 by the 1st Respondent.
Ex.A14 Copy of Postal Acknowledgement Card as proof of receipt of Legal Notice dated 24.12.2012 by the 2nd Respondent Ex.A15 Copy of Postal Acknowledgement Card as proof of receipt of Legal Notice dated 24.12.2012 by the 3rd Respondent.
Ex.A16 Copy of reply of the 2nd respondent dated 31.12.2012 to the Legal Notice dated 24.12.2012 Ex.A17 Copy of Original legal Notice dated 07.01.2013 to the 1st Respondent Ex.A18 Copy of Register Postal receipt dated07.01.2013 Ex.A19 Copy of Original legal Notice dated 07.01.2013 to the 2nd Respondent Ex.A20 Copy of Register Postal receipt dated07.01.2013 Ex.A21 Copy of Original legal Notice dated 07.01.2013 to the 3rd Respondent Ex.A22 Copy of Register Postal receipt dated07.01.2013 Ex.A23 Copy of Postal Acknowledgement Card as proof of receipt of Legal Notice dated 07.01.2013 by the 1st Respondent Ex.A24 Copy of Postal Acknowledgement Card as proof of receipt of Legal Notice dated 07.01.2013 by the 2nd Respondent Ex.A25 Copy of Postal Acknowledgement Card as proof of receipt of Legal Notice dated 07.01.2013 by the 3rd Respondent.
Ex.A26 Copy of Pass Book of State Bank of Hyderabad into which my salary been deposited by OFPM.
Ex.A27 Copy of letter dated 07.03.2006 issued by OFPM Ex.A28 Copy of letter dated 16.03.2006 submitted to OFPM Ex.A29 Copy of Factory Order dated 07.06.2006 by OFPM Ex.A30 Copy of my requisition letter dated 30.12.2006 submitted to OFPM.
Ex.A31 Copy of OFPM letter dated 03.01.2007 Ex.A32 Copy of AVHQRS Note-7 dated 12.01.2007 Ex.A33 Copy of OFPM letter dated 22.01.2007 Ex.A34 Copy of OFPM letter dated 24.03.2007 Ex.A35 Copy of OFPM Notice dated 10.05.2007 Ex.A36 Copy of Factory Order dated 31.05.2007 by OFPM.
Ex.A37 Copy of Release Certificate dated 31.05.2007 of Shri N. P Ghosh, issued by OFPM Ex.A38 Copy of Release Certificate dated 28.08.2007 of shri S. Kadirvel, issued by OFPM Ex.A39 Copy of Release Certificate dated 28.08.2007 of shri E Dasarathanl, issued by OFPM Ex.A40 Copy of Application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 12.02.2008 Ex.A41 Copy of reply of OFPM to Application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 07.03.2008.
Ex.A42 Copy of Release Certificate dated 15.04.2008 of Shri A Shanmugam, issued by OFPM.
Ex.A43 Copy of Release Certificate dated 23.05.2008 of Shri V M Rao, issued by OFPM.
Ex.A44 Copy of Final Report u/s. 173 Cr P C dated 03.05.2010 Ex.A45 Copy of Cause List dated 14.11.2011 Ex.A46 Copy of Cause List dated 06.03.2012 Ex.A47 Copy of Cause Lit dated 27.06.2012 Ex.A48 Copy of Representation dated 04.10.2012 submitted to the Opposite Party No. 2 Ex.A49 Copy of Proof ( Postal receipt) sending Representation dated 04.10.2012 to the Opposite Party No. 2 Ex.A50 Copy of Representation dated 18.01.2013 submitted to the Opposite Party No. 2 Ex.A51 Copy of Acknowledgment Cards as to receipt of representation dated 18.01.2013 by the Opposite Party No.2 Ex.A52 Copy of Representation dated 03.04.2013 submitted to Honble DJ by fax Ex.A53 Copy of Telephone Bill of fax dated 03.04.2013 submitted to Honble DJ Ex.A54 Copy of Fax Confirmation Reports dated 03.04.2013 Ex.A55 Copy of ultimate page of Certified copy corresponding to Copy Application dated 10.05.2013.
For the Opposite party Unmarked document Xerox copy of G. N. No.2767/11 PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER