District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri P. K. Chakraborty - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 78/2013
1) Shri Kalipada Mohanta
2) Shri Sukumar Mohanta
Both s/o Late Niranjan Mohanta
Vill.: Beline, PO: Dakra
P.S.: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
The B. L. & L. R. O.
PO: Beltala Park
PS: Balurghat
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party
For complainant ……………… - Shri Bidyut Kumar Roy, Ld. Adv. & - Shri Anish Das, Ld.Adv.
For OP ……………… - Shri Samit Bhowmick, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 01.10.2013
Date of Disposal : 07.03.2014
Judgment & Order dt. 07.03.2014
In short, case of the complainants / petitioners is that originally their father namely Niranjan Mohanta was the owner in respect of the property, which has been mentioned in the schedule of the application itself. After death of their father they have inherited the disputed property. Thus, they have become owners and possessors of the property in question. During possession of the property they submitted applications on 5.8.2010 before the B. L. & L.R.O., Balurghat (OP) for recording their names in the suit property as per provision of the W.B.L.R. Act. They submitted their prayer before the B. L. & L.R.O. Balurghat with requisite fees vide D.C.R. Book No. 282607, Page Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19. Thus, they have become consumers of the OP. On the basis of their applications the authority concerned i.e. the OP started 8 (eight) separate proceedings being numbered 2659/2010, 2670/2010, 2687/2010, 2646/2010, 2671/2010, 2672/2010, 2673/2010 and 2686/2010 u/s 50 of the W.B.L.R. Act. Hearing of those proceedings have been concluded since long. In despite of completion of the hearing of those cases the OP did not publish record of rights in their names in respect of property in question. He also did not supply certified copy of the order passed in the said proceedings on the basis of the applications submitted by them. It is the further case of the complainants that lastly they filed an application on 11.9.2012 for obtaining certified copy of the order passed in the above mentioned proceedings, but they did not get the same even after waiting for a considerable period of time. They filed an application before the D.L. & L.R.O. Dakshin Dinajpur on 27.9.2012 narrating all the facts with a request to take steps so that they can get the certified copy of the order passed in the proceedings as well as for recording their names in the R.O.R. in respect of property in question. D.L. & L.R.O. Dakshin Dinajpur considered the matter and forwarded the same to the OP vide Memo No. 2660/L & LR/XXIII 2/12 dt. 10.12.2012 for taking measures on the basis of their prayer, but no effect at all. Ultimately, they filed another application on 15.1.2013 for getting certified copy of order passed in the proceedings as well as for recording their names in the R.O.R. Against the said application no action was taken by the OP. Getting no other alternative they again filed an application on last 22.2.2013 by registered post with A/D requesting the OP to supply the certified copy of order passed in the proceedings, but to that effect no step has been taken by the OP. They again submitted an application on 5.3.2013 to the concerned authority under RTI to know the status of their prayer. Thereafter the OP by a letter vide Memo No.499/BLLRO-BLG dt. 5.6.2013 intimated them that the case records have not been traced out on searching. On getting no other way they filed another application on 13.8.2013 with requisite court fee for obtaining certified copy of the order passed in the proceedings. No action has also been taken against the said application. Hence, the instant application has been filed by the complainants against the OP, praying for giving direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for their harassment, mental pain and agony.
The OP has contested the present case by filing a written statement inter- alia denying all the material allegations made by the complainants in their petition of complaint. It is the main contention of the OP (so far it can be gathered from his written statement) that at present the records in connection with proceedings Nos. 2659/2010, 2670/2010, 2687/2010, 2671/2010, 2672/2010, 2673/2010 and 2686/2010 are not available and he is searching out the same. He would supply certified copy of the order passed in the said proceedings, when the same would be available. It is the further case of the OP that by giving strenuous efforts he has become able to trace out the record of Case No.2646/2010 and the OP has been informed to collect the same vide office Memo No.1203(2)/BL & LRO/COCR dt. 8.11.2013. He is still trying to search out the records of the other proceedings.
According to OP, there is / was no any negligence and deficiency in rendering service on his behalf. Hence, OP prayed for dismissal of the present case.
From the materials on record we have come to the following finding.
FINDING WITH REASONS
Before passing this judgement we have carefully perused the petition of complaint, written statement and the other materials on record. It is the main contention of the complainants ( so far it can be gathered from their petition of complaint) that originally their father Niranjan Mohanta was the owner in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule of the application itself. After death of their father they have inherited the property. Thus, they have become owners and possessors of the property in question. It is the further contention of the complainants that they filed applications before the OP (B.L. & L.R.O., Balurghat) with requisite court fees praying for recording their names in the property in question as per provision of the WBLR Act. On the basis of their applications the authority concerned i.e. the OP initiated the proceedings being numbered 2659/2010, 2670/2010, 2687/2010, 2646/2010, 2671/2010, 2672/2010, 2673/2010 and 2686/2010 u/s 50 of the W.B.L.R. Act. According to the complainants, although hearing of those proceedings have been already concluded, in despite of the same the OP did not record their names in the property as mentioned in the schedule of the application itself as per provision of the WBLR Act. Ultimately, they submitted several applications with requisite court fees before the OP for getting certified copy of orders passed in the said proceedings. But OP did not supply the same.
At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainants submitted before us that the complainants have become consumers under the OP as they submitted applications with requisite court fees before the OP for recording their names in the property in question. They also filed application with court fees for obtaining certified copy of the orders passed in the proceedings. In support of his above contention, Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the ‘xerox’ copies of the applications submitted by the complainants before the OP concerned. Moreover, it is admitted by the OP that on the basis of the applications submitted by the complainants, the proceedings Nos. 2659/2010, 2670/2010, 2687/2010, 2646/2010, 2671/2010, 2672/2010, 2673/2010 and 2686/2010 were initiated in respect of the property as mentioned in the petition of complaint. So, we opine that the complainants are the ‘consumers’ of the OP. It is the main contention of OP (so far it can be gathered from his written statement) that at present the case record in respect of Case Nos. 2659/2010, 2670/2010, 2687/2010, 2671/2010, 2672/2010, 2673/2010 and 2686/2010 are not available. For the said reasons, he is / was not in a position to supply certified copy of the order passed in the said proceedings in favour of the complainants. It is the further contention of the OP that by giving strenuous effort he has become able to trace out the case record of the proceeding No. 2646/2010 and he has intimated the complainants to collect certified copy of the order passed in the said proceeding through office Memo No.1203(2)/BL & LRO/COCR dt. 8.11.2013.
At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainants submitted before us that due to such illegal act on behalf of OP the complainants faced prolonged harassment and have been suffering from mental pain and agony. So, it would be justified, if sufficient / adequate amount of compensation is awarded in favour of complainants. We have already stated above that it is the contention of OP that records of the proceedings excepting the record of proceeding No.2646/2010 are not currently available and he would supply certified copy of the order passed in the said proceedings in favour of the complainants, if the same are available. In our considered view it is / was a mere excuse on behalf of the OP to deny the claim of the complainants. OP cannot escape himself from his liability by saying that the records are not available in his office. So, it was rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainants that there is / was gross negligence / deficiency in rendering service on his (OP’s) behalf. It is to be noted here that OP searched out the record of the proceeding No.2646/2010 after filing of the present case. In support of the case of the complainants Ld. Counsel referred to a decision reported in 2008 (2) CPR at page No. 141 (NC). We have carefully perused the said decision. It is held by Their Lordships in the said decision that where petitioners put prolonged harassment in pursuing his request for getting copy of document from concerned officer, direction was given for payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment undergone.
Judging in the light of our above observation and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as with regard to the decision as mentioned above we are inclined to hold that it would meet the ends of justice, if we award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation in favour of the complainants.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP, but in the circumstances without any cost.
OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation to the complainants namely Kalipada Mohanta and Sukumar Mohanta by issuing two separate account payee cheques of Rs. 2,500/- each in their names within 45 days from the date of this order, out of which the complainants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two hundred fifty) only each in the “ State Consumer Welfare Fund ” (A/c No. 0093000100310261) payable at P.N.B. Balurghat Branch, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the cheques.
Direction is also given to the OP to deposit the said cheques to this Forum within the abovementioned period.
Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
(P. K. Chakraborty)
President
I concur,
(S. Saha)
Member
