NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
(From Order dated 26.10.2004 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh in Appeal No. 1664 of 2004)
Ravindra Mohan Namdev Petitioner
Resident of Orccha, Tehsil Niwari
District Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh
Versus
1. Naib Tehsildar, Orccha Respondent
Tehsil Niwari, District Tikamgarh
2. Collector, Tikamgarh
Madhya Pradesh
HON’BLE
MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner In Person
For the Respondent NEMO
This
petition impugns the judgment and order dated 26.10.2004 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal (in short, the State
Commission) in appeal No. 1664 of 2004. This appeal was filed by the Collector,
Tikamgarh (a district in Madhya Pradesh) against the judgment and order dated
15.07.2004 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tikamgarh (in
short, the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 9 of 2004.
2. By
its aforesaid order, the District Forum directed the Naib Tehsildar, Orccha,
District Tikamgarh and Collector, Tikamgarh to furnish to the complainant the
copy of the records he had applied for by securing the said record from
wherever it was and also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.450/- by way of
compensation and costs of litigation.
3. Observing
that the order impugned was rather innocuous and the District Forum had merely
asked the Naib Tehsildar, Orccha to supply the certified copy (ies) of the
document(s) in question, the State Commission confirmed the District Forum’s
order. However, the State Commission disallowed the payment of Rs.450/- to the
complainant. This revision petition by the complainant mainly prays for grant
of a reasonable amount to him towards compensation for harassment he faced in
the process of getting copies of documents duly applied and paid for by him and
the legal expenses that he was forced to incur in the process of getting copies
of the documents / orders in question from the Naib Tehsildar, Orccha.
4. The
petitioner has appeared in person and we have heard him. However, no one is
present on behalf of the respondents, despite being informed of the date of
hearing (09.01.2008) on the immediately preceding date (29.08.2007), on which
day the counsel for the respondents was present.
5. The petitioner has contended in his averments that he has been able to secure a copy of the order dated 09.03.2000 passed by the Naib Tehsildar in revenue case no. 1 / A 19 / 1999-2000, a copy of which he has produced in these proceedings before us. Emphasising that this copy, on the face of it, shows that the said order was not signed by the Naib Tehsildar, he has reiterated that his application was for the order of the Naib Tehsildar in revenue case no. 10 / A 19 / 1994-95. He has further contended that the order dated 22.03.2004 of the Naib Tehsildar rejecting his application dated 09.05.2003 for a copy of the order in revenue case no. 10/A 19/1994-95, on the ground that the relevant case papers were not available in the office of the Naib Tehsildar (as they had been sent up to the Collector), was factually incorrect and deliberately misleading because what had been sent up to the office of the Collector, Tikamgarh was the record of another case, viz., no. 19/ A 59 / 1998-99. The records produced before us show that the petitioner’s contentions are not without substance, in which case it would clearly imply that the respondents here, who are responsible officers of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, have yet to comply with the order of the State Commission. Still, in the absence of any representative before us at the time of hearing on 09.01.2008, we refrain from making further observation on this conduct of the officer(s) concerned and restrict ourselves to directing the Collector, Tikamgarh that if, as alleged by the petitioner, the copy of the document for which he has applied has not yet been furnished to him, the Collector may arrange to supply the copy (ies) to the petitioner within two weeks of the date of receipt of this order, irrespective of whether or not the petitioner has obtained a copy by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
6. From the facts of the case, there is no doubt that the petitioner has been put to prolonged harassment and considerable costs in pursuing his request for getting the copy (ies) of the document(s) from the respondent(s) in this case and finally he has also had to approach this Commission. We, therefore, order that the Collector, Tikamgarh shall arrange to pay to the petitioner (original complainant) a sum of Rs.5, 000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by way of compensation for harassment and towards costs of litigation, within four weeks from the date of this order.
7. We
also direct that a copy of this order be sent, by name, to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal so that appropriate action is initiated by
the State Government to recover the awarded amount from the officer(s)
responsible for such misfeasance in public office, in accord with the ratio of
the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Lucknow Development
Authority vs. M. K. Gupta [(1994) 1 SCC 243] and Ghaziabad Development
Authority vs. Balbir Singh [(2004) 5 SCC 65].
………………………………
[P. D. Shenoy]
Presiding Member
………………………………….
[Anupam Dasgupta]
Member