DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No. 2 of 2014
Gandhi Sahu, S/o. Late Bidyadhara Sahu, aged about 43 years, Occupation – Cultivation & Business, R/o. village / P.O./P.S. Dunguripali, District – Subarnapur.
………… Complainant
Vrs.
1. Kanaka Champa Meher, Additional Tahasildar, Dunguripali, P.O./P.S. Dunguripali, District - Subarnapur
2. Kanaka Champa Meher, Tahasildar, Rampur, P.O./P.S. Rampur, District - Subarnapur
3. Kanaka Champa Meher, In charge of Record Room and Dunguripali, District - Subarnapur
…… Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. None
Advocate (G.P.)for the O.Ps. …………. Sri B.K.Dash
Present
1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President
2. Smt. S.Mishra Lady Member
Date of Judgement Dt.23.9.2015
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.
In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that one Dasarath Meher filed mutation case bearing No.143/2013 on the ground of purchasing the land of the complainant. On 25.10.2013 the O.P. passed order dropping the said case. On 28.10.2013 the complainant applied for urgent certified copy of the said order. But the O.P. are intentionally avoiding to give the certified copy of the said order, though it has been given to Dasarath Meher on the same date. For this act of the O.Ps. the complainant has been harassed physically, mentally and his valuable property right, has been affected. So he has claimed a compensation of Rs.72,500/- on different heads.
The O.Ps. in their version has stated that Dasarath Meher has never filed any mutation case bearing No.143/2013. According to the O.Ps. the complainant has applied for the certified copy of entire order sheet, final orders and R.I. report of mutation case No.147/2013 stating it to be dropped on 25.10.2013 but actually as a matter of fact the case was in process on that date.
-: 2 :-
The complainant applied for the certified copy of entire order sheets of M.C. No.147/2013 and not of M.C. No.143/2013. The complainant has applied for the same without affixing the required court fee. After detection of the same the complainant was asked to affix the required court fee. That on 16.1.2014 the complainant was informed to affix the court fee and after such compliance on 1.2.2014, the certified copy was issued to him on the same date.
So according to the O.Ps. there has not been any deficiency of service on their part. So the O.Ps. prayed to dismiss the complaint. Though the case was adjourned to different dates due to the absence of the complainant, neither the complainant, nor his advocate appeared before the Forum. Ultimately when both of them remained absent on the date of final hearing, the case was heard from the side of the O.Ps. So we are disposing this case basing on the materials available on record and upon examination of submissions of learned counsel for the O.Ps.
We, have perused the complaint petition. In the complaint petition the complainant has stated that he had applied for C.C. of M.C. No.143/2013. We have perused the receipt of counter foil filed in this case and ascertain that the complainant has applied for copy of M.C. No.147/2013. During hearing the learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that the certified copy of the said case has already been supplied to the complainant and it is also averred by the O.Ps. in their written version. In the above said scenario, we are not in a position to make the O.Ps. liable for deficiency of service. So we dismiss this complaint case. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
Dated the 23rd day of September 2015
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Smt. S.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak
Lady Member President
Dt.23.9.2015 Dt.23.9.2015
